CAPE TOWN – Brackenfell Ratepayers Association (BRPA) has issued a strongly-worded statement in response to the City of Cape Town’s latest announcement regarding affordable housing development in the quiet, middle-class neighbourhood of Ruwari, raising several concerns about consultation processes and infrastructure capacity.
In this announcement two weeks ago, the City stated that it had issued R126 million in tenders for affordable housing developments on four land parcels, including the controversial erf 9702 in Brackenfell.
The proposed project will see 115 City rental flats and 30 Gap houses go up on the open land in Affodil Street adjacent to the Brackenfell Traffic Department.
Ruwari residents have opposed the development since 2019, citing concerns about property values and inadequate infrastructure. Last year 1 600 residents signed a petition that was hand delivered to the mayor.
Chairperson Carlo Agostini underlines the question on the minds of residents: “What has changed since 2019 when the development was initially put on hold due to unsuitable infrastructure?”
He also expresses frustration over what residents describe as inadequate consultation processes. According to the BRPA, both the City and ward councillor has failed to take heed of their ongoing objections, whilst not addressing the petition from taxpayers in the immediately affected area.
“The COCT has not followed due course by having our input noted regarding this type of development in an established neighbourhood. The residents in the area had no knowledge [of the tenders issued] other than hearing of it in the local newspaper.”
We may express our disapproval through the ballot box if the City continues to ignore our concerns.
He again highlights existing traffic congestion issues in the area, particularly around the traffic department’s new drive-through licensing facility. They argue that the development would exacerbate current problems, noting that parking in Affodil Street has effectively reduced the already narrow road to a single lane on most days, causing endless frustration for residents of Ruwari.
“Photos and videos of this on a daily basis have been widely distributed to officials only to hear that it is not a problem! Well it is a problem to the residents, we live here,” says Agostini.
Rather than affordable housing, the ratepayers suggested that the land could be better utilised as a parking facility to alleviate congestion caused by the new licensing terminal. Furthermore they proposed using the grounds for a dog park, fitness park, and skateboarding facility, arguing that Ward 7 lacks adequate infrastructure for young people and pet owners.
The association furthermore states that they previously requested updated case studies, impact studies, environmental studies, and carbon offset studies but claims to have not received any response from the City in this regard.
“We have also requested the Mayor to join us in a meeting on erf 9702, for him to see for himself what we are objecting to in the hope that common sense would prevail, but he has failed to respond. As ratepayers, residents deserve to have their voices heard and respected, and we may express our disapproval through the ballot box if the City continues to ignore our concerns. We have said before that we are not opposed to development and do understand the need for housing, we do not however need the wrong development in an old established neighbourhood that will affect the lives of residents that have lived here for more than 30 years.”
Two processes
In response to a media inquiry, Ward 7 councillor Grant Twigg says a public meeting was held as part of the Municipal Asset Transfer Regulations or MATR process that took place in 2024 for which a response letter was sent out to residents. “Generally objections to proposed developments are processed and addressed as part of the statutory public participation process. This process is for the relevant City departments to manage and not for me as the ward councillor as it’s outside of my mandate,” says Twigg.
However, a response was not sent out for the said petition, says the City, as the petition did not form part of the public participation period for the MATR which commenced on 10 May 2024 and closed on 10 June 2024. By then the preparations for the next big step being the land use management process or LUMS were already underway. The above-said tenders were issued in terms of only the MATR, the City explains.
“LUMS is subject to its own public participation process, and residents will be afforded a second opportunity to submit objections, as a final decision on this has not been reached as yet,” Mayco member for humans settlements Carl Pophaim told TygerBurger.
Infrastructure upgraded says City
Referring to infrastructure changes since 2019, Carl Pophaim, Mayco member for human settlements, says subsequent investigations have since been completed wherein City engineers verified that sufficient bulk capacity now exists for water, sanitation, and electricity to support the development.
Mayco member for finance, Siseko Mbandezi, adds that the operations at the Brackenfell traffic department’s drive-through has been closely monitored and it was noticed that congestion is mainly caused just before the facility opens as residents arriving early, queue to be assisted, but that options are being considered to alleviate this problem.
Studies have shown that such developments can facilitate urban regeneration without destabilising the functioning of the existing property market.
Regarding alternative land use, Pophaim notes the proposed development includes a public park, adding that affordable housing is designed to enhance the area’s character through attractive buildings and green spaces.
“These developments often bring forth urban management benefits for the receiving communities, providing favourable conditions for private sector investment that may respond to the need for additional amenities; and contribute to the upliftment and vibrancy of existing neighbourhoods. Studies have shown that such developments can facilitate urban regeneration without destabilising the functioning of the existing property market, particularly property values within the surrounding context,” he says.
