A 146-unit mixed-housing development on City-owned land in Ruwari has drawn fresh objections from residents who have been fighting the plan since 2019.
Ruwari residents last week received a notice in terms of the land use management framework of the controversial development planned for Erf 9702, which requires the City to relax three development rules before it can proceed, a request JONO Trust Professional Planners has formally submitted as three departures on the Local Business 2-zoned site.
The site, which the City itself owns, is earmarked for 115 social rental flats and 31 market GAP units, having been on the cards since 2019.
ALSO READ: Brackenfell inwoners ongelukkig oor Ruwari-ontwikkeling
The first departure involves building height. The zoning limits buildings to 12 m, but the applicant wants to push four-storey buildings alongside Kruis Road to 12,34 m, an increase of 340 mm. Second, the developer wants to provide 127 parking bays instead of the 146 required under the development management scheme, arguing that after-hours surveys at comparable affordable rental developments showed an actual parking demand of only 0,45 bays per unit.
Third, the application asks for more than the original two carriageway crossings and for several to be spaced closer than the required 12 m apart, including two crossings just 2,5 m apart.
Spatial justice
In a complex 52 page document, JONO elaborates on the motivation for the development that has seen huge community pushback.
In the application JONO does not describes the development as low-cost, but as affordable rental housing aimed at households with gross monthly incomes from about R3 500 to R34 800, and even gives examples such as police officers, electricians, plumbers, admin clerks and bookkeepers, arguing that the planned housing is essential.
ALSO READ: Ruwari residents oppose City of Cape Town’s social housing plans
The application refers to a market feasibility study that was undertaken specifically for Brackenfell and surrounding areas, concluding that there is strong local demand for both bonded and rental affordable housing, sufficient to support 31 market/GAP units and 115 affordable rental units.
It is further stated that affordable housing should be put into well-located areas, relying on the City’s spatial strategy of creating a better mix of income groups and addressing economic and social exclusion. It says the development would allow a wider range of income groups to reside in the local area.
The application further rely on the Spluma principle of spatial justice. The motivation is that affordable housing has historically been pushed to remote locations, and that well-located, well-resourced land should therefore be made available for affordable accommodation such as on this site that is adjacent to a public-transport route.
‘Character of the neighbourhood’
The design of the development is motivated saying it proposes to protects the existing Ruwari houses.
This will be done by placing the 31 two-storey market houses along Affodil Street to “better manage the interface with neighbouring residential erven”, while the taller three- and four-storey affordable blocks are pushed towards Kruis Road.
The design section also states buildings should be stepped up in height away from Affodil Street and use setbacks and landscaping to soften the interface with existing houses.
The applicant notes that there is often the suggestion that local residents have an expectation that the character of the neighbourhood will not change. In other words, people who live in an area often expect their neighbourhood to stay the same, the same size properties, the same quiet character, nothing new or different. In planning law, this is called a “legitimate expectation” that the character of the area won’t change.
This is exactly the kind of well-located, established area where affordable housing should be integrated.
However, the applicant argues that this expectation only holds water if the area’s official planning framework actually supports keeping things as they are, for example, by setting minimum plot sizes that prevent denser development.
In the case of Erf 9702 in Brackenfell, the City’s own District Plan says the opposite, as it explicitly calls for redevelopment of vacant and under-used public land for housing, and encourages higher-density, mixed-use development that supports public transport.
It is therefor argued that one cannot claim the neighbourhood should stay unchanged when the City’s own planning policy for that area actively promotes growth, higher density, and new development.
“This is exactly the kind of well-located, established area where affordable housing should be integrated; there is demonstrated demand; the zoning already allows residential use; and the design has been arranged to reduce the impact on the existing Ruwari houses,” it is stated.
Continued pushback
But home-owners in the area hold steadfast to their objections.
“For people living nearby, the issue is about more than just the number of units. People are worried about whether this development fits the site, how it will blend with existing homes, its effects on traffic and parking, access, privacy, the character of the neighbourhood, and long-term impacts on the community. Many are especially concerned about possible drops in property values,” says Peter Gagiano of the Brackenfell Ratepayers Association.
The City’s public participation notice lists the application as Case ID 1500161127. It invites affected people to send in objections, comments, or other input, with reasons, by 28 September. The notice says these submissions will become public documents and will be sent to the applicant for a response.
“For residents who have followed the Erf 9702 process for years, the issue is about more than just sending in another objection. The main worry is whether these objections will be taken seriously, addressed, and reflected in the final decision.
“A previous proposal was opposed, many objections were recorded, and the development concept changed. The City then moved to sell the property and launched a new tender process that closed on 18 March with six bidders,” says Gagiano.
“This planning application is another major step in a debate that has lasted for years. The question is still simple, will the City listen?”
