ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV
1
TimestampNameArea of residencePlease provide your comments on the CNdP Draft Proposal with reference to the page number(s) you are commenting on.File upload 1File upload 2File upload 3File upload 4File upload 5
2
22/05/2024 09:25:35Michael Bloubergstrand Ext 1Firstly, as the owner of Number 3 Bayview, I strongly object to the idea of a 4-way traffic circle as shown on page 109 at the T-junction of Sir David Baird and Marine Drive and I love the idea of the 3-way traffic circle as described on page 127. I agree with the proposal to put another 3-way traffic circle on Perlemoen rd and Marine Drive and the third proposed at the junction of Marine and Wave, as I believe this should slow down those speeding towards the T junction, which has cost numerous lives in the time I have lived here.

When I purchased the property I got written confirmation that the veld/bog in front of my house and across the road is part of the Blaauberg conservation area and that nothing could be built in that veld, otherwise I wouldn't have bought property here. So once again I strongly object to a road being built in front of my property, It should be noted that there used to be diverse wildlife including mongoose, snakes, frogs, wild cats, tortoises, cape chameleons, and much other wildlife living in this ecosystem which has been damaged by periodic sewage overflows over the last 4 - 5 years. Many of these small animals have not been seen since.

Secondly, I strongly urge the planners to consider putting the pedestrian crossings a minimum of 10m away from the circle. If you look at the pedestrian crossing at Marine Circle, when someone driving inside the circle stops to allow pedestrians to cross they back up traffic and stop the flow. The cars heading into the circle do not. In Europe and at the waterfront outside the Cape Town Stadium you will see that the pedestrian crossings are a distance away from the circle so that they do not interfere with the flow of traffic in other directions.

Thanks for your time and consideration.
3
24/05/2024 12:02:17L.R. Bloubergsands The Development as proposed is absolutely unsustainable.
1) Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx
2) Old and degenerated Stormwater and sewer system
3) Noise and pollution
4) NO EIA has been undertaken
5) Possible threat to specific and endemic animal, insect and reptile species
6) Water supply reticulation
7) No Waste generation and Environmentally friendly disposal impact study has been done
8) Current R27/West coast Riad/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone a additional 15 000 residents
9) City of Cape Town can not guarantee or supply a stable Electricity grid
10) No schooling infrastructure
11) This area must be developed as a Eco Estate, with a low density footprint.
4
24/05/2024 12:25:19GraemeWest BeachExcellent work and nice to see such proactive interactions with all stakeholders. Regarding the pedestrianisation of Stadler Road in Blouwberg Village, a survey was conducted including all South African tax paying citizens that frequent the node, Stadler St and beaches. An overwhelming majority (90%) said they are in favour of creating a street Cafe/Piazza experienc. Another remark that also indicated that a majority felt that they had no say in what happens in the area and that they would like to be able to have a voicehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1FU8wOR7DFjbYRSHAOPzsmmvFkimMSDDAhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1JeWn1fqnNGa6yz4sXAt-6BLJq7EVddVg https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l4JE3oNWU3GMRa9RAG2Z7jQujx1KCyqV
5
24/05/2024 12:29:04SeanBig BayI am in total support of the proposal.
6
24/05/2024 15:45:03Jason Big BayI would just like to commend the authors and researchers on the proposals, I’m very impressed by the thought and planning that has gone into it. I don’t have any concerns and support all proposals. Thank you.
7
24/05/2024 16:15:51JoeyLa Paloma, Big BayI found the presentation to be excellent and am pleased with the general proposals
8
24/05/2024 16:35:48ShirleyBloubergstrand7.2.3.1 The proposal in its entirety provides an excellent vision for the whole area.
This proposed land development seems to add seamlessly to the existing area, and will also be very close to the world famous Blouberg Beach with its iconic view of our Cape Town heritage site (Table Mountain) Everyone should therefore consider supporting this enormous planning task, as it will create many jobs, while securing a lovely space for tourists. The plan covers most of our vitally important aspects: protecting our environment, increasing tourism, creating jobs and building housing, businesses and infrastructure for the community.
9
26/05/2024 12:22:47CliveDune Ridge Estate, Big BayThe light industrial units referenced in the draft for ERF1117 on page 64, should be removed totally and only include office/retail units. Access to this area should become a left in/left out on the R27 and not through the estate from Big Bay Boulevard. This will help reduce congestionhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1sUjDRLJfbW2bVGnUyxBJdvywjhGgwSlt
10
26/05/2024 22:58:06willemBig BayRegarding Figure 7.2.5.1 Tourism. AND Fig 7.3.2.1 AND Page 99,
I am an Honorary Life Member of BBSLC.
The BB Surf Lifesaving Club only focus is to save lives and the entire clubhouse is leased from the City to perform this voluntary purpose. The clubhouse was built by Jonga in 2006-7 to replace our old clubhouse like-for-like in functionality and space. It is not a recreation or tourist or event or exhibition venue, The clubhouse is purpose-built and used for training lifeguards and Nippers to become lifeguards. The hall is used predominantly for training and meetings linked to lifesaving.
We do rent out the hall when available to raise funds to cover the cost of operating the clubhouse. The club of managed and operated by volunteers only. The lease agreement is quite clear on the use of the clubhouse and will not entertain any other usage other than its core focus of lifesaving. The analogy is NSRI stations built all over SA. The NSRI focus is Sea Rescue and SA Lifesaving focus is inshore rescues such as popular beaches. NSRI is activated by callout and Lifeguards patrol / monitor the sea directly daily during entire summer season. The building is thus 100% used in entire summer season for lifesaving purposes. We also, based on above, not entertaining any upgrade of building for any other purpose.

PROJECT 1 on Page 99 is inaccurate regarding "little used functions rooms and large volumes of unused space. All space is used for the purpose of lifesaving in some form or other. The bar / trophy room is an important and vital means of income and a social area for lifeguard movement. Again, our space cannot be used for any purpose than other than for Lifesaving. All space is purpose-build and used.
Note that the large open roof deck is also part of the Lifesaving Club Leased area.
Also wish to add the NO KITE SURFING equipment is allowed to be stored. It is not a sports club. The Surf Skis and Kneeboards are lifeguard craft for surf rescue and patrol.
There is one room north of the club building not on the lease agreement that can be used for tourism that is not part of lease property. It’s been empty and has a direct access to the walkway. Please contact me for more information on this room.
11
27/05/2024 09:18:21JapieKingshavenI am in support of the document as presented and the Status Quo Report. I am also grateful and appreciative of the leadership of Anthony (and his team) in this matter, and for his continued tenacity to keep this process going. Thank you ANthony!
12
27/05/2024 15:26:13Brett Blouberghills EstateI have no specific comment to a specific slide. I think the overall view and plan is solid and represents a logical and thought through plan to ensure that the areas under discussion are used the best possible manner taking into account a variety of income levels and also beautifying the area, making it a more desirable area to live and work in, while taking into account minimised impact to the natural environment.
13
27/05/2024 21:34:21VeruschaWest BeachI thought it is ok, I like the road connecting Rochester to the road at the beach over the dunes as I deem it not safe to walk across the dunes as is currently. However, having a school in the area may increase traffic too much. I am concerned that the current occupiers of Erf 117? seem not to be considered. I am unhappy with the idea of small businesses opposite Tablebay Mall on the property in question. No community hall should be included. More homes for the elderly rather than youngsters starting out.
14
28/05/2024 07:49:47WadeSunningdaleHow does this effect the House/ property values in Sunningdale, Big Bay and West Beach?
Will this lower our property values?

Who will maintain the area, Home Owners association? Garden Cities?

What security measures will be in place to ensure community safety?

What Bulk infrastructure will need to be replaced/ up sized to accommodate these developments?

Traffic congestions - Evacuation routes from Eskom Koeberg Power station. When will the R300 link up happen as this will ease current traffic congestion on the R27. Adding these developments without additional major access routes will add to the current congestion issues.

Slides 59 to 78 specifically feature ERF 1117 “Happy Valley
15
28/05/2024 10:56:51MariusDune Ridge Estate, Big BayHi.

I just have 2 points:

1.) Traffic - I know this came up as one of the most problematic issues, but I need to emphasize that it is something to figure out before anything else. We are already struggling to get out of our estate safely during peak time (we and Sandown will need our own traffic circles soon). An example this morning: At 07H15 Berkshire Boulevard traffic was walking speed between the Total circle and Relam 4-way stop...
2.) I might have things wrong but if the idea is to have retail outlets close to or incorporated into the high-density developments (ground floor) you will probably struggle with qaulity tennenats and footfall. Lost of examples in Parklands were this isn't working.

Otherwise super excited about the proposal.

Tx
16
29/05/2024 11:42:35DenissunningdaleI am very happy with all proposals on the report and we need urgent development on erf 1117
17
18
02/06/2024 12:24:07TonyTrustee at Sandown / Blouberg Hills EstatesSee attached file...https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hyA3pmwcemrAApgIBqjER0gcIO3UEfFu
19
02/06/2024 13:39:35StewartBig BayI am simply adding my voice to say thank you and well done on the work so far. I support the proposals to the extent that they are able to be implemented. In particular, the work regarding ERF 1117 (7.3.9) looks amazing - I am surprised that there has been push back (from what I assume is a vocal minority), considering it appears to be feasible to have only 20% developed as affordable housing. I would would not be opposed to a higher percentage if it were somehow feasible. Most of my concerns and suggestions are already covered - walkability, public transport, safety for the residents, and the correct mix of commercial and differing levels of residential. I hope that the development will encourage greater diversity in the area through the mix of housing affordability - I think of areas like Kenilworth and Plumstead, which have greater diversity due to a mixture of flats and houses where there is a range of affordability. I think it is key to have a greater mixture, as Big Bay is currently very homogenous. Having different options available nearby would benefit current residents: Children moving out to a first apartment may have closer options, and there may be more nearby downsizing options available for residents as they get older.
20
03/06/2024 16:46:11RogerSunningdale1. In general I support the development of ERF 1117, however I am against the light industrial plan on ERF 1117. 2. The R27 cannot cope with the current traffic density. Adding several thousand more homes on ERF 1117 will further add to the chaos, what is the plan to mitigate this chaos. 3. Short to medium term the additional traffic will surely compromise the Koeberg NPS area evacuation plan how will this be mitigated. 4. How will the bulk infrastructure be rolled out as currently it cannot cope as it is. 5. At what point will an Environmental Impact Study be performed?
21
04/06/2024 09:13:18KerrOcean Tides, Big Bay Page 172 Industrial Business Park - We do not support a Light Industrial Park in a residential area bordering Big Bay as it does not fit in with the theme of it's adjacent neighbour residential areas and would significantly impact/exacerbate the already heavy traffic along Big Bay Boulevard, which is the only direct route into Big Bay from the R27.
22
06/06/2024 17:27:50MBig Bay
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.

2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.

7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53

1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71

1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the residents needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191

1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.

2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistringuishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly Mixed use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient takeup for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.


Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay blvd due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.

7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126

BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.

BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.

BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.

BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID.The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LRrZO0UHEb7TQ4BR3O4bpTlHreRHQybi
23
05/06/2024 21:38:04RyanBig BayGood day, I kite surf in Big Bay regularly. Currently the circle by Eden on the Bay where the kite surfers pump and deflate their kites is just sand and sharp debris with no lawn. I would like to suggest that circle be laid with artificial turf, so that is has little to no maintenance and gives the kiters a nice place to pump and deflate their gear on.

The image attached is before the lawn had died, and I have attached an image of an example of a circle with artificial turf.

I tried to upload the images, but the JPEG format was not accepted in this document.		https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bAI0z0udaN_eZDGw1hnCR4ZI9zoK8F_R, https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-rhb-68bjZjKJL3pN2QpJBr29rGg0shK, https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gWh6squnI2tzZ-xqDK58o_ykZivRX_dW
24
05/06/2024 12:58:50PierreBig BayThank you very much for a great proposal which I mostly support except for the idea referred to on page 172 of bringing a Light Industrial Part development into the area. I really do not think it fits well with the area also as there as many other such developments not far from the area already.
25
05/06/2024 12:59:46Elizabeth Sir David Baird Drive, BloubergstrandPage 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.
I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security.

I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.
26
05/06/2024 13:32:58CathyMoolman Roadpage 137 - the proposal to have Mixed Use Retail Sites on Otto du Plessis - 'Blauuwberg Dunes'. I live opposite this area and its already a noisy road to live on. To add retail establishments will increase traffic, noise, loitering and crime. I did not buy a house in the most expensive area in Bloubergstrand to now have a retail centre plonked opposite. This is unfair to existing residents in their daily living, safety and property values. If you look at West Coast Village, with taxis, homelessness, this type of open retail / mixed use will attract this to the area. To have this proposal impacting existing residents is not acceptable and if you want to add retail areas it should be on R27 side where there are not existing residents.
27
05/06/2024 13:43:35BRA Collective Blooubergstrand Our concern lies in the significant time and resources the BSA has dedicated to this proposal, yet there are key oversights and a lack of informed content despite the information being provided to you. The proposal also haphazardly introduces urban design elements onto an already overdeveloped precinct, making implementation challenging and impractical. To save time, we have made a summary of each point in the proposal with our comments beneath each point. We discussed this proposal with various members of the community, and we created a Google form for residents to complete which is included in this communication. We would appreciate a response for us to be able to assure residents that their views have been heard and that the proposal will be adapted to include what 96.5 % of what the residents support. please see supporting documenthttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1qyqV70yFd0yfKY2uDCjTYMem2pBa-qdi
28
06/06/2024 09:55:01FransDune Ridge and Waters Edge EstateBig Bay and surrounds was developed on the following existing and established principles and should not be jeopardised:

"Street Scapes:
The internal streets are consciously designed in a way which supports a village character. Roadways are kept to a minimum to recreate the intimacy and close building-to-street relationship found in seaside villages all over the world. The street verges broaden out and support small recreational areas amongst the houses. These spaces are linked via short pedestrian routes that run east-west between the blocks."

"The Result of Codes and Guidelines being applied:
The combination of codes and guidelines ensure the creation of a village designed by many architects who will all working towards the establishment of a high quality environment in which “the whole is more important than the constituent parts”. With such an approach the prime location is recognized while the high property values are supported and protected."

FEEDBACK ON THE LSDF:
page 48 - there are too many development nodes, especially down the R27 and in erf 1117. The R27 is one of the main arterials to Cape Town and should provide unhindered, free flow traffic in and out. The nodes in erf 1117 (and others inside existing neighbourhoods) will have a negative influence on the existing character of the areas and will have a negative impact with all the associated retail elements ie parking requirements, increased traffic, truck deliveries, waste management, etc

Page 61 - the additional roads, especially in erf 1117, might not be required if the density of erf 1117 is reduced and light industrial developments are omitted, a proper traffic impact assessment needs to be done by professionals.

page 78 - Sewer and sanitation infrastructure need to be investigated by consulting engineers before any development is even considered. This might restrict or limit development signaficantly. The existing services can't cope and is problematic for many many years, and to date this could not be fixed by CoCT.

page 110 - the traffic circle (or any other traffic regulating system) is a good idea. that intersection is dangerous and needs urgent attention.

page 164 - affordable housing will have a negative impact on high-end neighbourhoods for obvious reasons and should rather be avoided or limited as much as possible. This could easily turn into a security nightmare for us all.

page 173 - light industrial is not just warehouse outlets like Hirsch and Eurolux as indicated, it includes small factories and workshops as in Rivergate Industrial Park close to Du Noon. This should rather be omitted, it will also influence the character of the existing areas negatively and the associated industrial elements will have a negative impact, ie increased traffic, sound pollution, unsightly, trucks, etc.

general - there is no "Inclusionary Housing Policy" formulated yet, why cater for this? This is a threat to the high value of the areas properties and it will bring social and economical problems to our doorstep.

Furthermore, I support the BRA (Blouberg) collective and their comments, they applied their minds and consulted professional people. Very valuable input.
29
05/06/2024 16:06:23CarineBloubergstrand Village Page 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.

BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
• little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
30
05/06/2024 16:37:44Astrid Blouberg Big BayPage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village 


On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted.  Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support. 


BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive.  I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.


BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.


BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway. 


BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.


Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green.  The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported.  Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park.  Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.


Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority.  The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.  To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

 

Page 38 


Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:

·     little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.

The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population. 


Page 154-191 Erf 1117


I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood
group housing blocks.

 

Commercial / Industrial

The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

 

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.



31
05/06/2024 17:00:32JohannBlouberg I am in agreement with the amended proposals submitted by Jan Derksen
32
05/06/2024 17:01:10PatSunningdaleI am objecting to the Industrial area within residential area. Too many blocks of flats which will be low cost housing which will affect the rest of the area and attract crime and drugs as we have seen in Parklands. Retail is not required as there are several shopping malls within the area.
33
05/06/2024 17:12:53MelanieDune RidgeBig Bay and surrounds are a prime location with high property values that are supported and protected. The area is renown for its natural beauty and escapes being labelled as yet another suburban jungle because of the quiet, open spaces. I am not against development but rather the scale and density at which it is being proposed.
FEEDBACK ON THE LSDF:
page 48 - there are too many development nodes, especially down the R27 and in erf 1117. The R27 is one of the main arterials to Cape Town and should provide unhindered, free flow traffic in and out. The nodes in erf 1117 (and others inside existing neighbourhoods) will have a negative influence on the existing character of the areas and will have a negative impact with all the associated retail elements like parking requirements, increased traffic, truck deliveries, waste management, etc

Page 61 - the additional roads, especially in erf 1117, might not be required if the density of erf 1117 is reduced and light industrial developments are omitted. A proper traffic impact assessment needs to be done by professionals.

page 78 - Sewer and sanitation infrastructure need to be investigated by consulting engineers before any development is even considered. The existing services can't cope and has been problematic for several years; CASE IN POINT the constant sewerage issues at the intersection on R27 and Sandown Road.

page 164 - affordable housing will have a negative impact on high-end neighbourhoods for obvious reasons and should rather be avoided or limited as much as possible. The security risks attached to this suggestion would be deeply unsettling to most of the current residents who chose to live in this area for its abundance of security complexes and security patrols.

page 173 – I am opposed to light industrial spaces which will include small factories and workshops. It will have a negative impact with regards to increased traffic, sound pollution, unsightly etc. It seems quite unnecessary to add industrial spaces to the proposed urban living spaces. There are already industrial areas in Rivergate that could serve this need.
Traffic congestions - Evacuation routes from Koeberg Power station. Linking these developments without additional major access routes will add to the current congestion issues. Currently, we are finding it very difficult to enter Big Bay Boulevard from our estate as the traffic has already increased significantly.
Additionally, the proposal to build two schools as well as a community hall is very concerning as it will just add to the already growing traffic. I understand the need for extra schools to facilitate the growing population in this area but I feel that this could be done on the opposite side of the R27 where the major suburbs are located.
I am very concerned about how this new development will affect the House/ property values in Sunningdale, Big Bay and West Beach? Will there be sufficient security measures to ensure ongoing community safety and who will be responsible for maintaining the area? There is a certain aesthetic of these current suburbs which needs to be carried through and maintained by any new areas.

Lastly, but no less importantly, the greater area of erf 1117 forms an ecosystem for several types of wildlife like buck, mongoose, snakes wild bird species and much more. I saw no mention of plans for how this will affect their ecosystem. Once again, more of their homes are going to be appropriated to their detriment or demise. This is a rather large scope of development that will greatly reduce the living space for these creatures. I feel strongly that there should be less housing and more green corridors.
34
05/06/2024 17:44:36Kyle JardineSunningdaleThe low cost housing is unneccessry for the area, aling with too many apartments. Additional malls are excessive & an industrial area is not suited in the this suburban area.
35
05/06/2024 17:45:29SeanBloubergstrand VillagePage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.
You really have no clue if you plan for a 4 way circle. The roads around Perlemoen Road are EXTENSIVELY used by recreational athletes because they are hilly and relatively quiet. A 4 way circle will COMPLETELY DESTROY this for hundreds of people. Have the decency to LISTEN to local residents and do proper research. There are main roads to accommodate the main flow of traffic, it is ABSURD to create a thoroughfare through this area.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. Many people do not know how to behave close to the ocean. People have drowned in this area recently. The ocean here can get wild and the water is bitterly cold. Therefore I do not support the concrete walkway.


BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.


Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. LISTEN PROPERLY NOW..... the SAP and LAW ENFORCEMENT do not have capacity to deal with the inevitable issues that will arise from the proposed deveIopment. We DO NOT need a HEART... this will bring NOISE, LITTER and GENERAL DISTURBANCE close to our homes. The local community does not need the additional burden of managing the proposed area, people have enough to deal with. I live close to this area and I crave peace and quiet on my weekends. I absolutely do not support the proposal. IT IS A VERY BAD IDEA AND MUST BE SCRAPPED!


Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.
36
05/06/2024 18:09:00PeterBloubergstrandI support the summary drawn up by the BRA, which was based on the input that we the residents gave as per below :

Page 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.

BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway. This will create even more unnecessary erosion too.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
· little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
37
05/06/2024 18:37:09angela big baypage 137 - the proposal to have Mixed Use Retail Sites on Otto du Plessis - 'Blauuwberg Dunes'. This is a horrific idea and i do not support it at all. There are plenty of examples of where this has not worked - take west coast village for example as well as many areas in Parklands and Table View. This road is busy and loud enough. this will only serve to down grade a beautiful area. We do not need more retail space here with table bay mall a stones throw away. It will drastically decrease the value of our property and drastically increase the noise and traffic with which we already deal. Safety and security will also become more of an issue. Please consider other areas and do not place this retail space here.
38
05/06/2024 20:47:22RyanSunningdaleI don't agree with industrial, no need for retail as there are enough shopping malls, too many blocks of flats, don't need low cost housing in the area either
39
05/06/2024 22:01:44Edwin29 Sir David Baird Drive, BloubergstrandPage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village 

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted.  Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support. 

BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive.  I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway. 

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green.  The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported.  Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park.  Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road PedestrianPriority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.  To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

 Page 38 

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
·  little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.

The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population. 

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood. 
I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

 Commercial / Industrial

The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

 I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.

One attachment • Scanned by Gmail





























































40
06/06/2024 08:41:57MarinaBloubergstrand 208 BloubergheightsPage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village & Page 38 & Page 154-191 Erf 1117https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Q88AXpvGlv9U9dn9M5zHwOfFU7wD8atQ
41
06/06/2024 09:57:26HjalmarBig Bay Page 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village


BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
· little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
42
06/06/2024 10:57:33ErikaBloubergstrandI do not support the CNdP's Draft Prposal for the Big Bay LSDF
43
06/06/2024 11:14:10PierreBlouberg Page 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village



On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.



BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.



BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.



BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.



BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.



Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.



Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.



Page 38



Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:

· little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.

The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.



Page 154-191 Erf 1117



I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.



I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.



Commercial / Industrial

The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.



I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.

44
06/06/2024 11:16:35MelanieBloubergPage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village



On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.



BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.



BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.



BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.



BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.



Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.



Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.



Page 38



Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:

· little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.

The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.



Page 154-191 Erf 1117



I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.



I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.



Commercial / Industrial

The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.



I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
45
06/06/2024 13:09:17DanelleBloubergstrandPage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.

BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
• little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
46
06/06/2024 13:52:06Theo1 Batavia Road, BloubergstrandPage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.

BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
• little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
47
06/06/2024 14:11:21Werner Buysunit 1503 and 403 Blouberg Heights Sir david Baird road106-126https://drive.google.com/open?id=134gK65YhuiqdFq8Nk9YeWkP7X-xIUAtl
48
06/06/2024 14:02:43JeanneBLOUBERGSTRANDObjection to BSA local area plan:

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Bloubergstrand Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have been ignored consistently.

Page 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

BBSV3 Four Way Traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there it should not be disturbed unnecessarily. It will continue to attract vagrants which is a constant problem on this strip.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives of retreating from the high tide mark. This is an absolutely haphazard idea that will compromise the structural integrity of the sea wall and put pedestrians in danger during high tide. I am astounded that anyone with a little common sense will even consider spending more tax payers' money on a feasibility study.
I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. THE EXISTING SECURITY MEASURES IN THE FORM OF BLOUBERG PATROL ARE ROBUST AND EFFICIENTLY FUNDED BY OUR RESIDENTS. INTEGRATION WITH A COMPREHENSIVE CAMERA SYSTEM AND THE OPERATION OF A CUTTING-EDGE CONTROL ROOM ARE ALREADY IN PLACE! I will not support a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie which is at a premium as is. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

To address safety concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. Cars driving in the wrong direction is the biggest issue in Stadler rd!

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
"Little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult.”
Both these statements are totally unfounded. The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought-after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are too many flat blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
49
06/06/2024 14:21:46Craig BRA Community as represented by ‘Ext1’ & ‘The Ridge'On behalf of the BRA Community as represented by ‘Ext1’ & ‘The Ridge’ we would like to submit the following interim comments on the BSA BLASDF which is currently out for Community Comment. Please see attached.https://drive.google.com/file/d/11UvoJTSMBXCvupiIM6JbA4_4ySSqsfZ2/view?usp=drive_link
50
06/06/2024 14:28:32NigelStadler, BloubergstrandProject 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.
do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
51
06/06/2024 14:44:15Marlotte1 Batavia Road, BloubergstrandPage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.

BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
• little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
52
06/06/2024 16:24:02James92 Sir David Baird Drive5.5: I do not agree that ALL areas should have a mix of housing types and densities. Villages such as Big Bay should not have their character changed and densities increased just make them the same as everywhere else or conform to a utopian living arrangement.
6.1.1: Agree that the "community should be more involved" and yet the draft statement does not appear to reflect Big Bay community consensus that preserving the village character is important.
6.1: Height limitation should not creep up over time. I thought the existing limit was 8m (not 10m).
7.1.4: Historically there has been no issue with traffic or parking. It is becoming an issue on weekends and Summer holidays not because of local densities but from people travelling to the area from the newly developed areas inland such as Sunningdale and Parklands.
7.2.5: Not in favour of "top down" approach to planning tourism and building infrastructure EXCEPT in favour of stopping sewage getting into the sea and providing public toilets and showers. But tourism businesses can take care of themselves otherwise.
7.2.5: Against "tourism bus routes". Noisy / smelly (diesel) buses with cruise ship passengers coming to take photos adds nothing to the local area and is an example of unwelcome "over tourism".
7.3.2: Against informal trading as it undermines the tax base and brings crime.
7.3.4: Against increased frequency of buses along Sir David Baird Drive. Loud/noisy buses undermine the "village" character we wish to preserve.
7.3.4: against 4 way traffic circle at Sir David Baird exit. We don't want more traffic in the village.
7.3.6: Tour buses add no benefit to the village and harm its quiet character. I am opposed to facilitating them with additional parking etc. Indeed I would ban them or cap daily numbers.
7.3.9: I am in favour of developing Erf 1117 with low density housing and some walkable retail and office space, heights not to exceed the maximum permitted heights in Big Bay village. The undeveloped space should be incorporated into the wider development and secured so as to prevent land invasion and provide a safe space for fynbos and the indigent wildlife.
53
06/06/2024 17:06:35Hendrik6 Stadler rd. BloubergstrandI feel strongly that the village should be respected as one of the oldest fisherman's villages along the west coast, and that what can possibly be left of the centre in its latest form, should be done, e.g single residential along the seafront. Thus I fully agree to the BRA's reccomendations in connections with the changes proposed.
54
06/06/2024 17:30:25Neelesh Big bay Don’t approve this
55
06/06/2024 17:59:48Throshini NaidooBig BayAs stated on page 13 our concern is in three parts
1. What will the introduction of low cost housing do to the value of the properties in the area.
2. How will it affect the Koeberg Evacuation plan?
3. How will the existing infrastructure cope with a)traffic, b)sewage & drainage?
56
06/06/2024 18:17:20MBloubergComments regarding proposal for Erf 1117;

The densities proposed is over the top and not complimentary to adjoining properties. The densities proposed is more keen to state social housing schemes. No arms length commercial development have developed these level of densities without state or city subsidies. The off site infrastructure cost to house the proposed densities would be just unaffordable.

The inclusionary house condition of 20% for affordable housing is not a council legislated condition nor is it anywhere else in the country for any development, then why specify it here and now as a condition?. If and when this property is developed, let the official legislation that cover these aspects apply at the time. To pre-empt and specify such an onerous condition now when it is not required makes no commercial sense. The specification that the future Happy Valley community must be accommodated on the site is also another onerous condition that fall in the same category, as there are current legislation that covers it, however it can be done so on more affordable alternative locations.

The concept of creating an industrial zone in a built up residential area with its traffic to flow through the residential area is just flawed. The concept that stems from trying to create places of work close to “affordable” housing in this location is flawed. It does not fit into residential nodes of this character.

The concept of creating ground floor retail along most of the roads is an outdated European centric concept that has never worked in SA. One only has to look at the state of high street retail in our cities and towns across SA. Current extensive retail in the immediate area is already struggling to cope, with many vacancies.

A far greater need in the area are more retirement villages and lower to high density housing that will compliment and enhance the area, and should rather be the focus of new development, not what is proposed.




57
06/06/2024 19:09:54JacquesBloubergstrand VillageComment on CNdP BBLSDF draft proposal:

In relation to the planning of erf 1117, I wish to comment as follows.

• Traffic studies need to be done. Intensification of traffic along R27, Otto Duplesis and Big Bay Boulevard will cause unimageable congestion with the increase of traffic. (the foreseen additional cars and proposed taxi ranks and routes)
• I do not support the development proposal for a walk to work / shop and mix use development as this is totally out of characteristic with any of the surrounding communities.
• The proposal was done without taking the future development of the area along Berkshire Boulevard and to the east of the R27 into account.
• Sanitation, water, stormwater, solid waste management and energy have been omitted from the present planning proposal.
• The planned “low-cost” housing in the area does not make financial sense, local government could do much better by developing the erf aligned with the surrounding areas and current identity.
Comment on Village (subarea 4)

The inhabitants of Bloubergstrand prefer a quiet residential village atmosphere. The proposal needs to be in line with these wishes.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.
58
06/06/2024 19:30:34RonelBloubergstrandObjection to BSA local area plan:

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Bloubergstrand Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have been ignored consistently.

Page 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

BBSV3 Four Way Traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive:
I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there it should not be disturbed unnecessarily. It will continue to attract vagrants which is a constant problem on this strip.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is frankly absurd given the millions CoCT is spending on the seawall, and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives of retreating from the high tide mark. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room ARE ALREADY IN PLACE! I refuse to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie which is at a premium as is. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

To address safety concerns and improve traffic flow, we urgently need repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. Cars driving in the wrong direction is the biggest issue in Stadler rd!

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
"little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult.”
Both these statements are totally unfounded. The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought-after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

There are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
59
06/06/2024 19:47:35WimBloubergstrand Page 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.

BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive.
I would agree with a 3-way traffic circle, but not the 4-way circle with the new Rochester link. The idea should be to make the traffic situation safer! Not change it all together.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it!

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast.
This must be the most Ludacris idea ever! I don’t even think this is possible without compromising the existing structures, beach, public space and the safety of pedestrians. It would make more sense to try and preserve as much of the beach as possible for people to use, and walk along the coastline. It used to be sufficient for centuries.

BBSV12 Area wide security.
Currently there is a well-functioning security initiative in place (Blouberg patrol). I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green.
We don’t need over the top idea’s for our village in order to make the bigger proposal of the BSA look better. Focus on the actual issues and leave the village as is with a residents association that is run by the community. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority.
As a resident living in Stadler road I only see problems arise from this proposal. This is our only way out of the street by car. This is a one-way, which is already often used as a two-way street, resulting in very dangerous situation at the crn of Sir David Baird drive. Blocking of the end of the street for pedestrians only will encourage people to turn around and drive back the wrong way. There will be less parking and more issues. I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS.


Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages
and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.

60
06/06/2024 22:31:37IanBloubergstrand villagep.108 BBSV 1 - support no further parking made available
p.108 BBSV 2 - support improving pedestrian link
p.109 BBSV 3 - object to 4 way traffic circle Sir David Baird Dr., agree with 3 way circle
p.110 BBSV 4 - object to upgraded pathway - should be closed off
p.110 BBSV 5 - support retain and rehabilitate coastal dune veld fragment
p.111 BBSV 7 - object to concrete boardwalk section between Ons Huisie and Small Bay
p.113 BBSV 8 - support widening of coastal walkway between Verkouteren St and Big Bay
p.114 BBSV 9 - support no further development rights and rezoning
p.115 BBSV 10 - support Heritage and Character study
p.115 BBSV 11 - support the idea but Council is failing with policing current transgressions, so how would it be able to do this?
p.116 BBSV 12 - support no further commercial development
p.116 BBSV 13 - support Blouberg Village Local Overlay Zone
p.117 BBSV 14 - object to proposed area wide security - our existing security exceeds what could be provided by the CID at the existing cost to us
p.118 BBSV 14? - support increasing capacity, but it should be below ground. Even the present pump station is an eye sore
p.119 Project 1 - object to coffee shop / restaurant. This contradicts BBSV 12. Support restoration only.
p.121 Project 2 - object to development plan, allowing any pop-up stalls and events, food trucks and morning / weekend markets. There is an enormous market in Paarden Eiland every weekend. Support upgrading of lawn conducive to recreational facilities for families and children.
p.124 Project 3 - object to Stadler Road pedestrian priority proposal . It will simply exacerbate traffic congestion, and spill over into other presently less affected areas. More policing with regards to parking violations around the Ons Huisie area, as well as banning all tour buses below Sir David Baird would help. Furthermore, the removal / shutting down of illegal retail outlets in Stadler Rd would also help the overall situation.		https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BlY-RDcPVbyIpiIgP-LLx6j_P9V8KGuY
61
06/06/2024 22:50:48HennieBloubergstrand VillageComment on CNdP BBLSDF draft proposal:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment – I raise the following concerns:

1. Serious concerns relating to the traffic impact of the proposed plan:
• No traffic impact assessment has been done and is not part of the proposed plan.
• Traffic on Big Bay Boulevard, Otto du Plessis and R27 is already congested before the addition of a large number of high-density residential units.
• The Koeberg evacuation requirements are not taken into account.

2. I oppose the proposal to have mixed-use buildings with retail on the ground floor and flats above.
• Parklands main road is an example of such a building model and is not in line with the surrounding area and character to be achieved in a suburban residential neighbourhood.
• This proposal will also add to traffic congestion mentioned above.

3. Fixed affordable housing percentages do not have my support.
• Affordable housing to be addressed according to the city’s approved policy. My understanding is that the policy has not been compiled nor deliberated with the general public.

4. The proposal makes no reference to sanitation, water, stormwater and solid waste management. It is a concern that this is not planned for.


Comment on Village (subarea 4)

The inhabitants of Bloubergstrand prefer a quiet residential village atmosphere. The proposal needs to be in line with these wishes.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.
62
07/06/2024 00:25:49Georgia ABloubergstrandOne can see that this is merely conceptual and that far more thought and planning are required before clinging to something that may be unworkable.

1. Infrastructure would be my greatest concern as it impacts all existing residents.
Bringing more people in, to the detriment of existing residents, is unacceptable.

a. Sewerage - impact on sewer capacities - current overflow and aging system concern.
b. Roads & Traffic - Schools are a traffic nightmare - plan the flow - circle route in and out if possible. Medical facilities must also be easily accessible and not congested. Probably not great to put next to school.
The 3 way traffic circle at Otto du Plessis and Sir David Baird is vital. I would most definitely propose the same for Rochester into Perlemoen into Otto du Plessis intersection and Shell Rd/Otto du Plessis and Foam Road. It will sort many many traffic issues out and one wonders what has taken the city of cape town so long to do this. It will be disruptive but can be done in low season with minimal impact. It is far more important than the dune project currently under way.
Closure of Stadler Road would be lovely on occasion but unrealistic on a permanent basis as it gives access to people who live there and is also a link route to other tourist attractions. It needs to remain a thoroughfare for most of the time.
c. Public Transport facilities like covered My City bus stations for commuters travelling in winter are vital. Just as important are areas on the road side for taxi's to drop their passengers off safely. Nobody seems to plan for this.
d. Adequate power supply, policing, sanitation and the likes.

Is the City in a position to provide all this before entertaining any applications to develop the said area further ?

This development plan means nothing if town planning allow indiscriminate development without addressing all of the above, as has happened to date.

2. Has the Koeberg Evacuation Plan really been scrutinised to see how many new routes out of the area are necessary now, and when further development occurs ? Important exercise.

3. Additional retail is not necessary and complicates the traffic flows where proposed.

4. The same applies to Industrial development. Heavy duty vehicles will create further congestion. There are already existing new industrial developments in very close proximity.
They are at close enough distance for people in the area to travel there especially when the Big Bay Boulevard is extended to meet with the N7.

5. I'm in favour of an eco-village type development which respects the land on which it will be built and affords the residents various living options for their budgets.

6. Accommodating the elderly within the development, while also building schools to accommodate the young when bringing more people into the area is vital. Both of these facilities are in short supply. Kids should be able to walk home from school and enjoy activities in their area. Cycle tracks, put-put courses, sports fields are all desirable to encourage a good healthy life for all residents and tourists alike. Not every day is a beach day.
7. That said, the LIFE saving club requires maintenance. If the City cannot see to this basic issue, how do we propose the rest of the ideas will be executed ? The concrete roof section requires urgent repair but is not in the budget yet we propose to turn it into a multi purpose facility. I don't think so. Again in an emergency situation one cannot have to contend with congestion in a mixed use space.

8. I would suggest linking the entire area in this proposed plan, lying West of the R27 to the BBMPOA so that the existing excellent security and fibre infrastructure can be expanded for the good of all residents. No CCID is required. We have a good track record already and a vested interest to keep our area safe. Our camera network is superb and well monitored.

9. As a resident of Bloubergstrand I wish to lastly add that we have already experienced a big impact since the SR1 development rules were changed to favour densification.
I am NOT in favour of any further changes to promote this agenda. It has already begun to ruin the character of the village. Should further zoning changes be made, it will set a precedent which will result in the total destruction of the character of this place. City of Cape Town and the developers touted this village feel and wrote it into the design guidelines entrenched in the title deeds of the new section developed in Moolman Road in 2003-2005.
No high rises and zoning changes please.

10. I support the development of the park in a simple sustainable manner and rental of the facilities to be controlled properly. The library should be promoted and upgraded. It is a lovely space. Something similar to the one in Milnerton would be great.

Thank-you for considering my comments,

regards,
G A Kostiris
63
07/06/2024 05:27:36StepphenSir David Baird Draive BloubergPlease find our comments attached.https://drive.google.com/open?id=175xPD8EjEJlXNQydIBg-fMYBWaJ3-UOy
64
07/06/2024 07:13:14PieterBloubergstrand VillageBBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle.
Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

None of the above is in the interest of the taxpayer living Bloubergstrand village. It will destroy the nature of the village and negatively impact on the property values in the village. Factors such as noise from increased traffic and the influx of unsavoury elements of society has already done irreparable harm to the nature of village. This will be the final nail in the coffin.

The sad reality is that we as residents know that The City of Cape Town is not interested how or if we even respond by way of objection or any input. They will just force it like the destruction of Big Bay as a scenic beach front park.
65
07/06/2024 08:40:57Terry Haywood OBO BRA Community as represented by ‘Ext1’ & ‘The Ridge' The Ridge On behalf of the BRA Community as represented by ‘Ext1’ & ‘The Ridge’ we would like to submit the following interim comments on the BSA BLASDF which is currently out for Community Comment. Please see attached.https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hpwfbwrV623J2JfLXU1FpNUDN14FxMjd
66
07/06/2024 08:43:45JimStadler Road, Blouberg VillageWe are, and have been, residents in Stadler Road, Bloubergstrand for the best part of half a century and own two properties there (erven 196 and 197).

I confirm that we are broadly in agreement with the comments on the draft LSDF submitted by the Bloubergstrand Residents Association (BRA). However, with regard to the proposals contained in item 7.3.4 (project 3 on page 124) regarding Stadler Road (the thoroughfare is called Stadler Road and not Stadtler Street) I wish to take the matter further. There is absolutely no way that the current vehicular traffic and parking bays could be limited. It is absolutely impossible for vehicles to be rerouted via Batavia Street to Gen. Janssens Street. There is a romantic notion to convert Stadler Road into a pedestrianised piazza, mainly driven by particular commercial interests of certain individuals. This rediculous notion is completely impractical for the people who live there and and will meet with extremely strong resistance. Any attempt to impose restricted vehicular access without proper consultation with the residents and property owners concerned will be vehemently resisted including legal action if necessary. The proposal ro rip up the asphalt surface of Stadler Road and Gen. Janssens Street and replace it with cobblestones is an unnecessary costly and impractical suggestion and will constitute a waste of money which could be used for other purposes.
67
07/06/2024 08:44:32Dirk Larsen obo Nautilus HOANautilusComplex Big BaySee attachmenthttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1v-WSwA623Il4YHiGPlnmDWbDKWEOsU-5
68
07/06/2024 09:08:40MerleSunningdalePlease find attached our comments on the proposals contained within this Draft Big Bay LSDF document. We trust that these comments will be duly considered and implemented. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lMlCtTuvNR3xxFkGdJSREG3jLAShyLsw
69
07/06/2024 10:08:51DeonBlouberg HeightsPage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village



On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.



BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.



BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.



BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.



BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.



Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.



Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.



Page 38



Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:

· little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.

The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.



Page 154-191 Erf 1117



I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.



I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.



Commercial / Industrial

The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.



I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF
70
07/06/2024 10:10:36Monica Bloubergstrand BBSV3: I support a 3 way traffic circle not a 4 way traffic circle to link up with West Beach
BBSV5: I do not support a pathway
BBSV6: I do not support the proposed concrete walkway
BBSV12: I do not support a broader CID encompassing surrounding areas
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. It should remain as it is with no additional development
Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority: I do not support this proposal.
Page 154-191: Erf 1117: I support the proposals of the BBLSDF
71
07/06/2024 10:49:56CRB BlaauwbergBloubergstrand/Big Bay/West BeachAttached are the detailed comments on the draft LSDF for implementationhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=15MIePhhJdlusUqO80caEaDb5-WJV47Mhhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Mxz5XosZUKA1bVibyj_qr1_aup1GVzSI
72
07/06/2024 11:01:40MichelleBloubergstrand We have attached our comments as well as the BRA proposal for reference.https://drive.google.com/open?id=19F7AL2ieCKEpMmRIHUN00zbagJiIxUyphttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Y7iYrm1_7xajjognAPsrZn8sK0BwRrJLhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1G_kZzBQ6ZvIaO3d-4HlQizvFRdgGWjhFhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1ClNye8OOkBvNuApCH4eZq6AHqRhFzVkjhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1XYNKxIVKmTl7rPlt2V_ALxJ_vD8yMgLb
73
07/06/2024 11:24:55GregBarrington Close, SunningdaleI do not support the construction of Affordable housing pictured on page 59 on ERF 1117, and illustrated on page 61 as 9 & 10 General Residential 2 with details of the type of structures detailed on page 81 General Residential 2 as Blocks of Flats of 15 metres in height consisting of 4 to 5 storeys. These proposed blocks of flats would be approximately 200 metres from properties in Barrington Close,Canal West,Sunningdale, and at the proposed height of 4 to 5 storeys would have a serious impact on residents on Ridgecrest Street, between Barrington Street to Tidewater Street, Barrington Close.

Thank you.
74
07/06/2024 11:52:35GillianBloubergstrand VillageFeedback for CNdP Draft Proposal for the Big Bay LSDF


p.108 BBSV 1 – do NOT support further parking made available
p.108 BBSV 2 - support improving pedestrian link
p.109 BBSV 3 - object to 4-way traffic circle on Sir David Baird Drive, agree with 3-way circle
p.110 BBSV 4 - object to upgraded pathway – this should be closed off
p.110 BBSV 5 - support retain and rehabilitate coastal dune veld fragment
p.111 BBSV 7 - object to concrete boardwalk section between Ons Huisie and Small Bay
p.113 BBSV 8 - support widening of the coastal walkway between Verkouteren Street and Big Bay
p.114 BBSV 9 - support NO further development rights and rezoning in Bloubergstrand
p.115 BBSV 10 - support Heritage and Character study
p.115 BBSV 11 - support the idea, but Council is failing with policing current transgressions, so further information is needed to identify how this will be done.
p.116 BBSV 12 – support NO further commercial development
p.116 BBSV 13 - support Blouberg Village Local Overlay Zone
p.117 BBSV 14 - object to proposed area wide security – the existing security (Blouberg Patrol) exceeds what could be provided by the CID – and the cost is already covered by residents by choice
p.118 BBSV 14/15 - support increasing pump /sewage capacity, but it must be below ground. The current newly installed pump station is a ugly and an eye sore.
p.119 Project 1 - object to coffee shop / restaurant. This project proposal contradicts BBSV 12. Support restoration only.
p.121 Project 2 - object to development plan – NO pop-up stalls and events, food trucks and morning / weekend markets to be permitted - there are other nearby markets such as the weekend one at Paarden Eiland and pop-up stalls at Big Bay centre. Support upgrading of lawn conducive to recreational facilities for families and children.
p.124 Project 3 - object to Stadler Road pedestrian priority proposal. It will increase traffic congestion, and spill over into a wider area with more inconvenience to a larger number of residents. People are parking illegally already – such as on the pavements, blocking access to steps, and obstructing access to the large bin at the rear of Ons Huisie – proper reinforcement for parking violations is needed. All tour buses should be banned below Sir David Baird Drive as the roads are too narrow and congested. Illegal retail outlets in Stadler Rd should be shut down as this is primarily a residential area.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IHSbmmhgnI5kTtlBAl_uHEs5pl-Epqlj
75
07/06/2024 12:41:21ShirleySir David Baird Drive, Bloubergstrand Page 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village

On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.

BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
• little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
• little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
76
07/06/2024 12:59:41PieterBloubergstrand
BBSV3: I support a 3 way traffic circle not a 4 way traffic circle to link up with West Beach
BBSV5: I do not support a pathway
BBSV6: I do not support the proposed concrete walkway
BBSV12: I do not support a broader CID encompassing surrounding areas
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. It should remain as it is with no additional development
Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority: I do not support this proposal.
Page 154-191: Erf 1117: I support the proposals of the BBLSDF
77
07/06/2024 13:14:49Gary Big bay
7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.




ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.bel
78
07/06/2024 13:15:02SteffenBloubergstrand7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.




ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.bel
79
07/06/2024 13:15:50KarenBlouberg VillageMy objection isaligned with the BRA commentary
80
07/06/2024 13:20:04SabineBloubergstrand7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.




ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.bel
81
07/06/2024 13:20:14Natasja Bloubergstrand7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.
Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.
Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.
ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.
7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.
7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=17yqSpm9dBzKDbwcjkDJ5MH7cJqvrIEPw
82
07/06/2024 13:22:54LeonBloubergstrand7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.
Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.
Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.
ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.
7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.
7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NKxgEOfI5KLWIwvOoH4qWBJOaY2Xu3ls
83
07/06/2024 13:24:22JacoBloubergstrand
7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.
84
07/06/2024 13:28:49Mariëtte BloubergstrandComments can be copied and pasted or you can choose a few items that resonate with you:
7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.




ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.bel
85
07/06/2024 13:32:38FranchenBloubergstrandBBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
• little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
86
07/06/2024 13:40:15GranvilleBloubergstrandBBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
• little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
87
07/06/2024 13:49:01Georgia Bloubergstrand, Moolman RdBBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.



BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.



BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.



BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.



Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.



Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.



Page 38



Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:

· little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.

The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.



Page 154-191 Erf 1117



I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.



I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.



Commercial / Industrial

The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.



I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.

88
07/06/2024 14:00:10JasonBig BayP179 of the proposal on Erf 1117 mentions GR2 zoning for sites 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10. These are all 4 to 5 storey buildings of 15m. This was not disclosed at the meeting. Only pictures of medium density housing of 3 and 4 storeys were presented. I suggest that the height be capped at 3 to 4 storeys
89
07/06/2024 14:04:35Danette2 General Janssens Street 7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.




ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.
90
07/06/2024 14:04:41DORIANNEBloubergstrand I agree with all the comments below:

7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.




ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.bel
91
07/06/2024 14:06:14BernardBloubergstrand7.3.2 BIG BAY BEACHFRONT Page 96-101
BBB 3 Informal Trading
Do not support or agree this proposal, as I don't see what purpose and value this will add to a very busy public space throughout the year. This recreation and public space needs to be protected and maintained, for peak and non peak periods throughout the year, as the beach self has limited space or can be off limits with high tide or storms. You want to avoid the reduction of Public space for regular weekly activities for the community to accommodate Informal Trading, that will have limited client and trading.

Project 1 - Upgrade Big Bay Surf Lifesaving Club
Do not support or agree this proposal. Big Bay beach is a popular destination for water sports enthusiasts from around the globe. Whether you are hoping to catch a wave, exploit the wind in an exhilarating kite- or windsurfing session, tick the Robben Island swim off your bucket list or simply enjoy the beach with your family, lifeguards will look after your safety in the water as well as on the beach.

With the beach and bay as a major attraction, CCT is supporting the club and facilities, which was always a commitment to be included with the Eden on the Bay Development.

I can see that the club need maintenance, but expanding the area with the proposed ideas, such as skateboard bowl, climbing wall, MORE restaurants and coffee shops will not benefit the area.

The explanation provided is made from a narrow point of view, whom don't understand how the building and lifesaving club function to support the community and visitors throughout the year. The club also spend time to develop and train youth and adults to become lifesavers (on a voluntary basis) as much as voluntary fire fighters are trained in Newlands, to support the community and City with veld fires, the space inside the club is limited and need to be maintained.

Neither will tourism increase with the addition of a skateboard bowl, climbing wall. The parking area is limited, and access to beach and club for emergencies need to be respected. The club need to deliver a community service and the current space to continue

Why is the open grass area next Verkouteren Street, facing the beach between Small Bay Parking Lot and Walkway to Big Bay, not considered for upkeep or improvement, the vegetation on it is non-indigenous and it can become a lovely public space to view the beach and Cape Town City from for Tourism?

7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.

BBSV 4 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.

BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal. The Path will be continuously damaged by coastal surges and swells, this will become I high maintenance risk, but will also expose public to a high safety risk, that can cause more problems and even fatalities if the path is crossed during unfavourable periods.

BBSV8 Page 114 widening narrow walk way, think this will not be do-able, as the areas indicacted may be part of private owned land

BBSV14 Area wide security
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.



ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed
92
07/06/2024 14:08:16Douw Bloubergstrandp109 BBSV 3 - I support converting existing intersection to a 3 way traffic circle (heading still refers to Four way traffic circle.
p111 - BBSV 7; I do not support a suspended coastal board walk between Ons Huisie car park and Small Bay Park.
p114 - BBSV 9; I strongly support recommendation that no further development rights be issued.
p117 - BBSV 14; I strongly support the excellent idea to investigate the establishment of CID for larger Big Bay/Bloubergstrand area to manage security.
For the remainder I support the comments submitted by the BRA.
93
07/06/2024 14:17:46MargueriteBloubergstrand VillageNo to proposal made re walkways & boardwalks. No to pop up stores & festivals at Gen Janssens Park. Traffic circles are a must at SDB entrance to Village. No to pedestrian access only on Stadler Rd. No to all proposals that changes the character of our Villages due to persons that do not live in Bloubergstrand making decisions on our behalf… The Koeberg Nuclear Exclusion Zone has been ignored?????
94
07/06/2024 14:28:14EdéSpanish Steps 2, Ferguson Street, Bloubergstrand7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.




ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.
95
07/06/2024 14:29:43Jan Le Roux2 General Janssens Street, Bloubergstrand7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
BBSV 4 pg 116 pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor.
This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it.
BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.
BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.
Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie for day visitors. Given that public parking is already limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors.

Implementing such changes would entail a significant and costly project, primarily benefiting commercial businesses on both sides of the road. Additionally, pedestrians in this area are accustomed to navigating around vehicles and the new proposal would not result in any significant improvement.

Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.
This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket becoming unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.




ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.
7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”.
It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .
17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed
96
07/06/2024 14:30:03Christa Blouberg Heights, BloubergstrandPage 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village



On the 9th May 2024 a formal letter with the Village input to the BSA draft proposal was submitted. Our comments have not been considered despite it indicating that the input received 96.5% resident support.



BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.



BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.



BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.



BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.



Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.



Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.



Page 38



Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:

· little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.

The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.



Page 154-191 Erf 1117



I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.



I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.



Commercial / Industrial

The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.



I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.

97
07/06/2024 14:51:31Bronwyn Blouberg BBSV3 Four Way traffic Circle: Sir David Baird Drive. I do not support a 4-way traffic circle with Extension One and residents from West Beach (by way of the proposed new Rochester link) rerouted to the circle. I agree with a 3-way traffic circle.

BBSV 5 Upgrade the pathway between parking areas and Sir David Baird Drive through the coastal dune veld corridor. This section of greenbelt has been earmarked to form part of the Environmental protection area so there should not be a path through it. It attracts vagrants, invites problems with littering and few people would use it. I do not support this proposal.

BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. More concrete and less beach. Such an endeavor risks compromising the integrity of the seawall, impacts on the owners’ privacy and exposes pedestrians to the hazards posed by high tides. I do not support the concrete walkway.

BBSV12 Area wide security. I firmly oppose the proposal outlined above. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and efficiently funded by our residents. Integration with a comprehensive camera system and the operation of a cutting-edge control room are already in place, reflecting our proactive approach to security. I choose not to participate in a broader Community Improvement District (CID) encompassing surrounding areas, as doing so would diminish our autonomy and control and rates are calculated according to property rates which would result in villagers paying towards other areas maintenance and upkeep. I do not support this proposal.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green. The BRA has an agreed plan for the park, and the additional projects and proposals are not supported. Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to current problems in managing the behaviour in this park. Historically it has proved to be a parking, noise, and security problem for the residents. My support is exclusively reserved for a straightforward park design featuring a well- maintained lawn conducive to recreational activities for families and children, free from obstructions or fences. In season the village is already so busy, and parking is a big issue. It makes no sense to propose public events attracting more non-residents to the area. The mismanagement of current hall bookings has led to numerous rowdy parties, not ending when they should, with no support from law enforcement, contributing to instances of drunken driving and speeding within the village late at night. I do not support the proposal.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie. Given that public parking is very limited, maintaining public parking along this section is crucial for accommodating day visitors. To address concerns and improve traffic flow, we recommend installing repeated visible signage and road markings indicating the one-way direction. This closure would also result in traffic being directed illogically through the neighbourhood above Stadler rd. (via Biccard rd. and Batavia rd.) causing that whole pocket to become unnecessarily busy. I do not support this proposal.

Page 38

Under weaknesses (Section7.1.7.3) it is stated that the area has:
• little employment opportunities and that the low densities and population densities make achieving critical thresholds and viabilities difficult. Both these statements are totally unfounded.
The directly abutting Sunningdale in particular, with a relatively low overall density is probably the most sought after neighborhood under Cape Town’s growing population.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117

I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighborhood.

I feel there are many flats super blocks with too few group housing blocks.

Commercial / Industrial
The inclusion of commercial / industrial blocks is not supported. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. In addition, to facilitate an orderly and appropriate urban development model, additional industrial space is provided in Rivergate and additional space earmarked to the east of Sunningdale.

I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy. I believe a premature determination of this policy (which has not been compiled or deliberated with the general public) could have dire implications in future if an approved policy differs from the policy proposals in the BBLSDF.
98
07/06/2024 14:52:58CandiceThe Village in Bloubergstrand7.3.4 BLOUBERGSTRAND VILLAGE Page 106 – 126
BBSV 3 traffic Circles: Sir David Baird Drive
1. A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
2. Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
3. Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.

BBSV 7 Proposal for elevated walkway pg 117
This is unfeasible and quite alarming that professionals would even consider such a proposal.

BBSV14 Area wide security pg 123
There is no requirement for a CID. The existing security measures in the form of Blouberg Patrol are robust and working efficiently and effectively.

Project 2 Erf 448 Village Green pg 127
The proposals for Boardwalks, food trucks and markets are not wanted due to the problems these public events, and bookings for events held in the hall, cause for the residents. Parking is severely limited, which is worse in season, unwanted noise and music at all hours, and security issues are all current problems being faced.
We support the plan to have well- maintained open lawns for the enjoyment of families and children, free from obstructions or fences.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority
Before such a proposal be tabled there is a necessity for thorough consultation with Stadler residents, which to date has not taken place.

ERF 1117
1. It is very concerning that Critical studies by the BSA have not been done, and certain sections have been left out. These should have been done BEFORE proposing dwelling numbers on erf 1117.
a) TRAFFIC studies-KOEBERG evacuation study missing as reference document
Traffic studies, if they had been done, would have very clearly contraindicated ANY intensification along BB Blvd which will cause unmanageable congestion with an additional 10,000 cars and proposal for taxi ranks and routes.
b) Erf 1117 within KOEBERG EVACUATION area- this limits the number of additional dwellings that would be permitted-also omitted as reference and informing document
c) Infrastructure required-stormwater management, water supply, sewerage treatment and management, power and electricity etc- these sections conveniently left blank
d) Environmental Impact assessments
e) Sustainable systems(which, as per the DSDF should be integrated as part of the development of erf 1117)-power, water, etc and how these would be maintained and managed, budgeted for when 20%(proposed low cost development) of the development would not be contributing.
2. Inclusionary Housing
a. There currently is no formal City approved Inclusionary Housing policy. The City should not be stipulating minimum percentages on the subject property.
b. The State being the current landowner should not, and cannot, warrant such exceptions until a policy has been approved for all to abide by.
c. I do not support the idea of the fixed affordable or other inclusionary housing percentages and locations prior to the City not having an approved policy.

7.2.2-URBAN DEVELOPMENT PG 53
1. Fig 7.2.2.1 is out of context as it does not provide visibility on development intent and guidance in the MSDF and DSDF for the areas to the East of the R27.
2. Considering this information, the “well located” land for affordable housing would very clearly more suited to the economic nodes in the East like Rivergate.
3. On Figure 7.3.9.27 a large node is demarcated as a mixed-use node with offices and residential. This is not supported. With gated estates, and the traffic problems, there should be no development on Big Bay Blvd itself.
4. A local secondary neighborhood scale local node could be included abutting Cormorant Ave at the intersection feeding to Blocks 2 & 5. This can be in the form of a neighborhood shop a service station.
5. Refer sections relating to traffic and BRA proposals and comments for more on this.
6. Pgs 54-57 Sections are simply not applicable to the development of erf 1117. Most are applicable to denser inner city urban environments.
7. 7.2.2.4-statement that “This implies that the majority of the residential unit typologies should be 4 storey walkups”, and references to American Smart Compact City development concepts, which have no relation to the development of erf1117 due to its location and DSDF policy guidelines for this land, should be sufficient grounds to have this statement struck from the document.
8. 7.2.2.6-KOEBERG NUCLEAR EXCLUSION ZONE- this section MUST be included, as it sets limits to residential development, densities, evacuation, implications of development, taxi routes etc on evacuation have not been key informants to proposals for development of this area and road networks.
9. 7.2.2.7-R27 DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR- disagree with the development of the R27 as a “development corridor” beyond Paarden Eiland to the West. The R27 acts as the “N1” to the West Coast, and from the west coast areas of Melkbos and beyond, and is the only and ultimate transport route for commuters to areas of employment in the City and Southern suburbs. By slowing this road and adopting concepts that allow for retail and commercial developments along the sides (where there actually is no land to do this), and to have accesses to these areas from the R27 is a shortsighted and ill informed proposal that demonstrates little understanding of traffic management, or of this area at all.
The creation of development corridors and the associated densification along these routes, in EXISTING areas , where the road networks and Infrastructures(all) were never designed for these envisaged numbers(of people, cars, offices, buildings, taxis) without FIRST making the necessary upgrades, sets up a model that is doomed to fail, and we, the public, have to suffer through it.

7.2.3-TRANSPORT/TRAFFIC/ROADS pg 66-71
1. Fig 7.2.3.1 DOES NOT INCLUDE DETAIL OF AREA ALONG BERKSHIRE BLVD and to the East of the R27, which provides detail of the planned extension of this road, links to industrial and other economic areas, all of which would inform the requirements and proposals in this document.
2. Existing Road Infrastructure will not cope with the proposed massive traffic influx from an additional 18,000 people (from table 7.3.11) over the next 20 years.
3. Current R27/West coast Rd/Otto du Plessis can barely cope with current enlarged new Residential expansion, let alone additional 15 000 residents
4. See comments and BRA proposal
5. traffic circles necessary along Otto du Plessis
• A Rochester extension link is unfeasible. This should be a 3 way circle.
• Rochester/ODP should have its own 4 way circle with access to parking area opposite. With speed limits reduced to 50km/h along Otto du Plessis, having small circles close to each other, assists with passive control of vehicle speeds.
• Similarly, there should be circles on ODP at the intersections of Foam and Shell roads.
6. Koeberg evacuation-Big Bay Blvd to remain open, free flowing and undeveloped to ensure unobstructed traffic flows.
7. Page 68- Park and Ride
The beaches are already so congested during the summer seasons, that it is inconceivable to consider bussing more people in. The beachfront simply cannot cope. The damage, the litter, the maintenance and limited amenities makes this proposal unsustainable.
Furthermore, a park and ride facility, in this environment, in this economy, would simply be unfeasible.
8. 7.2.3.4-pg 70 There is NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL along Otto Du Plessis. Seaside Village and node at Marine Circle adequately serves the resident’s needs. Erf 1117 residents would be served by local nodes in each precinct. Unwanted and Unnecessary streetside retail causes traffic congestion, litter, vagrancy, taxi “ranks” and the design of such in existing areas is irresponsible.

7.2.4-URBAN MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND SECURITY pf 75
1. We support gated security estates for erf 1117 where these fit within the existing surrounding urban form. Refer BRA Eco estates proposal.
2. There are numerous references within this draft LSDF where the BSA have been proposed to manage, or be involved in feasibility studies, for various measures, which has no grounds for validity. These should ALL be removed.
3. Furthermore, POLICY UM2 with facial recognition, while optimistic, is not suitable for large gated eco estates, which by its very nature would provide the necessary security. However, agreed there should always be cameras on the roads and traffic.

7.2.5-TOURISM
1. Refer BRA proposal for gated Eco Estates and comments for incorporation of Tourism Economic generators and value adds for the area up to the R27 which would benefit the City of Cape Town in terms of marketing as a desirable international tourist destination.

2. The alternative, by indiscriminately developing erf1117 and destroying this beautiful district which is such an international tourist drawcard, will be a massive loss for the City of Cape Town.

7.2.6-7.2.10 SANITATION, WATER, STORMWATER, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENERGY
As mentioned earlier, the fact that these sections are blank by omission, is serious cause for concern. These studies should all have been undertaken before proposing numbers for development on erf 1117.

7.3.6 BLAAUWBERG BEACHFRONT Page 143-148
Page 145-BBF 1
We AGREE that there should be no more rezonings along the beachfront to GR3, and that all buildings will be limited to a maximum of 15m(GR2).

7.3.9 ERF 1117 Page 154-191
1. Page 161-STAKEHOLDER AGENDAS
It is stated that the COCT Spatial Planning Dept “requires evidence that all public policy have been addressed including provision for affordable housing”. It is a FACT that there IS NO CoCT Inclusionary Housing Policy at this time, erf 1117 is not “well located” land and is unsuitable for sustainable housing for very low incomes without being detrimental to ALL the surrounding established communities, AND to Big Bay as an upmarket and very successful Tourist Destination.
2. Erf 1117, is on the Urban Edge, in a Biodiverse sensitive area, within a Nuclear Reactor Evacuation zone, a renowned International Tourist destination, and does not fit in this category of “well located” land.
3. Instead , sound planning principles as contained in the MSDF and DSDF related to integration with existing communities, maintaining values, self-sustaining, ecocentric, Urban Edge design, Tourism development etc should be the informants.
4. We agree with the form and gradients of densities from east to west over the site, with forms, heights and typology of developments, matching with those existing established communities along the Southern and Western boundaries.
5. The development of erf 1117 should merge and be indistinguishable in character from the existing communities.
6. As mentioned by community input time and again, besides the problem of traffic congestion already in the area, and exits to the R27 from the beachfront of being, along Big Bay Boulevard at risk of becoming even more congested, and the fact that Koeberg evacuation logistics and limitations on numbers has not yet even been considered (omitted from the document), safety and security, and property values are the next most important priorities.
7. There is tremendous support for large, gated lifestyle communities, with integrated local retail nodes, with access from Cormorant and the opposite link road, but no access off Big Bay Blvd. Refer comments on the BSA proposals made by BRA on the roads, limitations, traffic etc, which all comply with the DSDF, and which to date have been largely ignored.
8. Integrate perimeter green areas into the gated developments. They are too hard to police if left as open corridors.
9. Mixed use retail / general residential abutting the R27 and BB Blvd
The proposal to introduce same with service roads is not acceptable as this model creates a completely contradictory urban form into the area. The proposed model would fit areas such as inner-city locations and activity corridors.
10. The development of erf1117 must be a balanced mix of residential densities and associated separate retail components to achieve a desirable implementation model especially considering the context of the existing urban environment.
11. Densities should be max 60du/ha in the higher density band along the R27, with a max height of 2-3 storeys. Any higher than this is totally out of character with the development on the West side of the R27.
12. Similarly mixed-use development as proposed with shops at ground floor is completely contra-indicated. This does not suit the development profile of the area, there is insufficient take-up for any additional retail in the area. This type of model is only suited to inner city , well located, high density infill development, not high value, urban edge communities.
13. Look at including retirement/educational uses rather than a civil type of establishment that requires maintenance from the City (see BRA proposal)
14. There is an urgent need for more retirement communities and facilities. A second retirement complex should be catered for which could be located in Blocks 2, 5 & 8 as per your draft plan.
15. School should be relocated. See BRA proposal for siting
16. NO LOW COST HOUSING-this should be exclusive to well-located land, as per Policy, close to industrial or inner city developments as per the Citys own DSDF and MSDF urban guidance documentation. Erf 1117 is on the Urban edge and is not “well located” .

17. The balance of Blocks 2, 5 & 8 should cater for medium density group housing instead of the sea of general residential units. This will support the theory of grading the densities from east to west over the subject property.
18. No mixed use retail on ground floor level with flats above This model is not complementary to the abutting envisaged character to be achieved in the context of the more densified suburban residential neighbourhood.

Traffic and Congestion
1. No large development nodes along Big Bay Blvd. due to adverse impact on traffic numbers and congestion
2. Similarly there should be no taxi ranks along this road.
3. Nor should there be any additional intersecting roads onto Big Bay Blvd from erf 1117. These encourage taxis to stop, cause backup from cars behind, are a cause for accidents. With large gated estates, accesses into the estates should be limited to Cormorant road and opposite Wave road.
4. See comments in BRA proposal document.

Commercial
1. No retail, especially strip retail-this is a failed model except in very high density inner city “superblocks”
2. Have Local retail nodes on either side of Big Bay Blvd, from Cormorant and opposite link road, adjacent to gated estate entrances. See BRA “Baie de Vie”(Bay of Life) proposal.
3. Petrol station is required
4. Provide employment opportunities such as offices, hot desking, etc around local nodes. See BRA Proposal
5. There should be NO INDUSTRIAL at all. There is more than sufficient / ample available zoned vacant land just across the R27 abutting Berkshire Blvd to cater for the needs. It’s inappropriate to force a model on a community where sufficient commercial space has already been designed.
99
07/06/2024 14:56:06LuindaBlouberstrand Page 106 – 126 – Bloubergstrand Village --
BBSV 6 Retain and rehabilitate the Coastal Dune veld fragment between the ablution block and the coast. Allocating resources to explore this concept of a Concrete Boardwalk attached to properties on the beach between Ons Huisie and Small Bay is impractical and not aligned with Coastal Management's objectives. Teh existing damage at two areas close by clearly show that this is impractical. The seawall near to the Kleinbaai park and the seawall near to On the Rock Restaurant show that it is an inappropriate proposal. I do not support the concrete walkway.

Project 3 Stadler Road Pedestrian Priority. The proposed changes would block access to existing public parking on Stadler and at Ons Huisie which is unacceptable to me. Public parking is extremely limited in the area and members of the public have the right to have access to a public beach. Seek alternate solutions like improving signage and road markings. I do not support this proposal.

Page 154-191 Erf 1117
I don’t agree with a mixed-use retail on ground floor level with flats above. This model is already in places around existing shopping centres in the Bloubergstrand Big Bay area . We need to balance these out with single residential neighborhoods.

100
07/06/2024 15:33:52MarqueriteBloubergstrandO agree with all the proposals