Q&A
This is a comprehensive and updated Q&A on the Local Spatial Development Framework (LSDF), addressing key concerns, governance issues, and proposed solutions to ensure community engagement and sustainable development.
Understanding the LSDF and Erf 1117
Q: What is Erf 1117, and why is its development so significant?
Erf 1117 is a large, state-owned land parcel west of the R27, near Big Bay and Bloubergstrand. Its development is significant because it sets a legal and planning precedent for how state land can be used in the future. This includes potential exemptions from City of Cape Town development policies, raising concerns about fairness, sustainability, and alignment with community needs.
Q: What is the LSDF, and what role does it play in the development of Erf 1117?
The Big Bay Local Spatial Development Framework (BBLSDF) is a planning document drafted by the Blaauwberg Spatial Association (BSA) to guide the development of Erf 1117 and surrounding areas. It outlines zoning, densities, land uses, and infrastructure plans. However, community concerns have arisen over the framework’s lack of transparency, its impact on traffic and the environment, and whether it aligns with the character of the area.
Q: How did we as a community end up in this situation?
The BSA (Blaauwberg Spatial Association) is a non-democratically elected group that under the leadership of our local Ward Councillors, successfully motivated to the City of Cape Town for approval to initiate a Community Driven Planning Initiative (CDPI), with an outcome being a formal Local Area Spatial Development Framework.
This initiative has been funded entirely with community donations and yet the Public Participation has not been properly followed and there is no defined process for evaluating input provided by the public.
The BSA has sidelined the community by continuing to use their contributed funds while making unilateral decisions about the project’s content.
Public Consultation and Process Concerns
Q: What is a public validation session, and should it have happened before the draft was submitted?
A public validation session is a structured process where stakeholders formally review and approve a draft framework before submission to authorities. No such session was held, which undermines the legitimacy of the BBLSDF’s community engagement process.
Q: What were the issues with the May 2024 and Zoom meetings?
The May 2024 in-person and Zoom consultation meetings were limited in reach, with many residents unaware or unable to attend. The format did not allow for full discussion of key concerns, and no clear record was provided on how feedback was integrated into the draft.
Q: What are the concerns about limited participation?
Exclusivity: Limiting attendance to 100 participants inherently excludes many interested community members, potentially skewing the feedback and making it less representative.
Digital Divide: Not everyone in the community may have access to Zoom, limiting their ability to participate.
Governance, Developers, and Funding
Q: Why should developers be explicitly mentioned in the BBLSDF?
Transparency is crucial. The BBLSDF does not specify which developers are involved, what commitments they have made, or how their projects align with sustainability and affordability principles.
Q: What role does the City of Cape Town play in the funding of this development?
While the BSA managed the draft framework, the City of Cape Town may provide funding for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and public transport. However, the extent of municipal funding is unclear, and a detailed financial plan has not been shared.
Q: What are the next steps for the community?
Q: Shouldn’t we accept the plan to at least avoid land invasions on Erf 1117?
An approved LSDF (Local Spatial Development Framework) does not address the issues of security or prevent land invasions. There is NO NEED to rush the process of LSDF approval. It’s much more important that the content represents a valuable and sustainable guide for the future. Development will take many years, and all through this time there will be a constant threat of illegal structures going up.
Security and surveillance measures are a crucial initiative and are under way. The current security arrangements and drone operations are in place, and it is imperative that this is managed separately from the Spatial Development Planning Process.
Q: Why does the classification of the R27 matter?
The BBLSDF incorrectly identifies the R27 as a Development Corridor, whereas it is officially classified as a Connector Route. This misclassification has led to proposals for high-rise, high-density developments that are not suited to the area’s infrastructure or traffic flow requirements. A Connector Route prioritises smooth vehicular movement rather than urban intensification.
Q: What is a Development Corridor?
A Development Corridor is a zone designed to support busy, high-density areas with mixed-use developments, including shops, housing, and public transport integration. These corridors promote pedestrian-friendly environments and encourage economic activity along key routes.
Q: What is a Connector Route?
A Connector Route is a transport route intended to keep traffic flowing smoothly between areas. Unlike Development Corridors, these routes are not designed for high-density developments or pedestrian-heavy environments. Their primary function is mobility, ensuring efficient vehicle movement.
Key Concerns with the BBLSDF Proposals
Q: What are the community’s primary objections to the BBLSDF proposals?
Density and Building Height: The proposed 4–5 storey buildings along Big Bay Boulevard and the R27 are out of character with the surrounding suburban and coastal areas.
Affordable Housing: While the community supports affordable housing (40% allocation for households earning R0–R22,000 per month), the current proposal lacks integration and sustainability, creating risks of social division.
Traffic and Infrastructure: The draft does not adequately address increased traffic flow, reliance on an unplanned MyCiTi station, and insufficient road infrastructure.
Environmental Impact: The proposals threaten sensitive wetlands, dunes, and biodiversity, impacting tourism and the natural landscape.
Economic Development: Industrial and light-industrial zoning at the R27 entrance is inappropriate for a high-profile tourism and residential area.
Q: What does the community envision for the development of Erf 1117?
The community supports sustainable, integrated development that:
Maintains low-rise buildings (2–3 storeys) to fit the area’s character.
Incorporates affordable housing indistinguishably within mixed-income developments.
Prioritises tourism-driven economic opportunities, such as a hotel on the ridge overlooking Table Mountain.
Protects natural features like wetlands and dunes, ensuring environmental sustainability.
Preserves Big Bay Boulevard as a free-flowing mobility route.
Q: How does the proposed development affect traffic in the area?
The plan could significantly increase congestion on Big Bay Boulevard and the R27, adding pressure to already burdened infrastructure. Increased vehicles, taxi operations, and pedestrian crossings could create safety risks and impact emergency evacuation routes, including those for the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station.
Q: What are the proposed housing densities, and why are they controversial?
The BBLSDF proposes an average density of 44.2 dwelling units per hectare (du/ha), which is 26% higher than nearby Sandown Estates. Some areas could reach densities of 60–250 du/ha, far exceeding the 12–18 du/ha typical of surrounding communities like Big Bay, West Beach, and Sunningdale. These high densities, combined with 4–5 storey buildings, are incompatible with the area's character.
Affordable Housing and Governance Concerns
Q: What are the concerns about affordable housing in the proposals?
Segregation: Affordable housing is concentrated in specific blocks rather than integrated within developments, which may lead to social and economic divides.
Design and Maintenance: Without strict policy guidelines, subsidised housing may deteriorate, impacting property values and neighbourhood aesthetics.
Lack of Policy Framework: There is no inclusionary housing policy for Erf 1117, creating uncertainty over how affordable housing will be integrated and maintained.
Long-Term Viability: There is no clear framework for how affordable housing will be managed or maintained over time, potentially leading to degradation.
The community should continue advocating for:
Public transparency on developer details, funding structures, housing policy and environmental impact assessments.
A Public Validation Session to ensure the framework reflects community priorities before finalisation.
Monitoring the City’s Review Process to prevent approval of the BBLSDF without addressing fundamental concerns.