MUNICIPALITY MUNISIPALITEIT › sites › default › files › documents › Agenda 27... ·...

GEORGE

MUNICIPALITY MUNISIPALITEIT

Office of the Municipal Manager:

Civic Centre GEORGE

6530

6 November 2018

Kantoor van die Munisipale Bestuurder:

Burgersentrum GEORGE

6530

6 November 2018

TO: All members of the Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal AAN: Alle lede van die Eden Gemeenskaplike Munisipale Beplanningstribunaal

Presiding Officer/Voorsittende

Beampte

Panel Members/Paneellede

Alternative members

Hendrik Visser

Jaco Eastes

Elma Vreken

Carel Venter

Dalene Carstens

EDEN JOINT MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL – GEORGE MUNICIPALITY

EDEN GEMEENSKAPLIKE MUNISIPALE BEPLANNINGSTRIBUNAAL – GEORGE MUNISIPALITEIT

Notice is given that a meeting of the Eden Joint

Municipal Planning Tribunal – George Municipality will be held in the Committee Room, 5th floor, Civic Centre, George on Tuesday, 27 November 2018 at 10:00.

Kennis geskied dat ‘n vergadering van die Eden

Gemeenskaplike Munisipale Beplanningstribunaal – George Munisipaliteit gehou sal word in die Komiteekamer, 5de vloer, Burgersentrum,

George op Dinsdag, 27 November 2018 om 10:00.

H VISSER CHAIRMAN / VOORSITTER

P:\Tribunal agenda\Agenda 27 November 2018.docx

Agenda: EJMPT-George Municipality meeting 27 November 2018

2

ITEM AGENDA

1. 1 OPENING OF MEETING

2. CONFIRMATION OF REQUIREMENTS

3. DETERMINATION OF VESTED RIGHTS

4. DECLARATION OF CONSTITUTED MEETING

5. APPLICATION FOR CONVENER/ORAL HEARING/ADDITIONAL ITEMS

6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

ITEM AGENDA PAGES

6.1 Temporary Departure : Erf 493, c/o Owen Grant Street and Waterside Road, Wilderness (F Vava)

3 - 30

6.2 Removal of Restrictions, Rezoning and Departure : Erf 157, Sands Road, Wilderness (F Vava)

31 - 49

6.3 Consent Use, Removal of Restrictions and Departure : Erf 74, Church Street, Hoekwil (E Malan)

50 - 62


3

6.1. Temporary Departure : Erf 493, c/o Owen Grant Street and Waterside Road, Wilderness (F Vava)

LAND USE PLANNING REPORT

Reference number

N/A

Application

submission

date

31/05/2018

Date report

finalized

20/11/18

PART A: AUTHOR DETAILS

First name(s) Fakazile

Surname Vava

Job title Town Planner

SACPLAN

registration number C/8792/2018

Directorate/Depart

ment Planning and Development

Contact details 044 801 9303 or [email protected]

PARTB: APPLICANT DETAILS

First name(s) Marlize

Surname de Bruyn

Company name Marlize de Bruyn and Associates Consulting Town and Regional Planners

SACPLAN

registration number A/1477/2011

Is the applicant authorized to

submit this application? Y N

Registered owner(s) Ballprop Fourteen CC

PART C: PROPERTY DETAILS Property description

(in accordance with

Title Deed) Erf 493, Wilderness

Physical address Corner of Owen Grant Street and

Waterside Road Town/City Wilderness

Current zoning Single Residential Zone I Extent(m2

/ha) 1788

Are there existing

buildings on the property? Y N

Applicable Zoning

Scheme George Integrated Zoning Scheme By-law, 2017

Current Land Use Vacant Title Deed number

& date T7315/2016

Any restrictive title

conditions

applicable?

Y N If Yes, list condition

number(s)

Any third party

conditions

applicable?

Y N If Yes, specify

Any unauthorised

land use/building

work?

Y N If Yes, explain


4

PART D: PRE-APPLICATON CONSULTATION(ATTACH MINUTES)

Has pre-application consultation been

undertaken? Y N If yes, attach the minutes of the consultation.

Reference Number Erf 493, Wilderness Official’s name J. Fourie

PART E: LIST OF APPLICATIONS (TICK APPLICABLE)

a. Rezoning b. Permanent

departure

c. Temporary

departure X d. Subdivision

e. Consolidation

f. Amendment,

suspension or

deletion of

restrictive conditions

g. Permissions required

in terms of the

zoning scheme

h. Amendment,

deletion or

additional

conditions in

respect of existing

approval

i. Extension of

validity period

j. Approval of an

overlay zone

k. Phasing,

amendment or

cancellation of

subdivision plan

l. Permissions required

in terms of

conditions of

approval

m. Determination

of zoning

n.Closure of public

place o. Consent use p. Occasional use

q. Establishment of

a Home Owners

Association

r. Rectify Beach of

Home Owners

Association

s. Reconstruct building

of non-conforming

use

Other

PART F: APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

1. Temporary Departure in terms of Section 15(2)(c) of the Land Use Planning B-law for George

Municipality, 2015 to allow for a tea garden and plant nursery (Phase 1) on Erf 493,

Wilderness;

PART G: BACKGROUND

Erf 493, Wilderness is registered under the name of Ballprop Fourteen CC. The property is situated

in the Wilderness area and has been in existence since the 1860s. Upon its land survey in August

1947, the property was developed with a dwelling house and was demolished in the later years to

accommodate a different land use proposal. The subject property is currently undeveloped.

In the year 2000 the property was granted an approval for a rezoning application to change from

Single Residential Zone to General Residential and Business to allow for a 16 bedroom guest house

in terms of the old Wilderness Town Planning Scheme Regulations, 1984. The rezoning application

was never implemented and had subsequently lapsed leaving the property undeveloped.

The property forms part of an area that is predominantly developed with residential properties as

well as mixed-use activities encompassing the western side of the property. The property also forms

part of an area that has a significant natural environment as a result of the opens space systems

and the Touw River mouth which is relatively close-by.

The application was originally submitted on 31 May 2018. It is also included an application for

rezoning to allow for a guest lodge on the property as well as a restaurant as a second phase. The

applicant has requested that the temporary departure be dealt with separately so that the

objections relating to the guest lodge and restaurant can be addressed.


5

PART H: SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS MOTIVATION

Note: Sections of the motivation relate to the above-mentioned rezoning and consent use

applications.

Introduction

The owner of Erf 493, Wilderness namely, Ballprop Fourteen CC, appointed Marlize de Bruyn

Planning to submit and facilitate the required land use application for the establishment of a guest

lodge with a restaurant in the property. Until construction commences the owner wishes to use the

property on a temporary basis as a tea garden with a small plant nursery to complement the tea

garden.

The development on the property is therefore proposed to take place in two phases.

The property is zoned Single Residential Zone I – dwelling house in terms of the George Integrated

Zoning Scheme By-law, 2017. All that is left from the original dwelling is the basement structure.

Locality

Erf 493, Wilderness is located in Wilderness, outside the CBD of the town on the eastern side of the

town commonage and adjacent to Touw River. The Wilderness National Park is neighbour to the

east and to the south is the day visitor’s area located adjacent to the Touw River.

Single residential properties with second dwelling units, various types of guest houses and a group

housing development are found along the northern side of Waterside Road. The Wilderness

Commonage, an important land mark in Wilderness, is situated directly to the west on the other

side of Owen Grant Street. Towards the south west a group housing development and flats are

located.

The property is frequented by the homeless people due to the protection the unused basement

provides.

Land Use Proposal

The owner wishes to construct a guest lodge on the property in accordance with the George

Integrated Zoning Scheme By-law (GIZS) with consent use for a restaurant. The location of the

property is most suitable for this purpose as it situate adjacent to the Wilderness National Park and

overlooks the Touw River mouth along its south eastern boundary. In the interim, prior to the

commencement of the construction, the owner wishes to utilise the property for a tea

garden/restaurant with a small plant nursery to complement this use and the setting of its location.

The property was surveyed to indicate the boundaries and physical features of the property. It

formed the basis for the site plan attached as Annexure B to the report. A separate copy of the

site survey is attached with the site plan. Remains of the original dwelling house are indicated in

the site survey as well as some Milkwood Trees which are found here. The trees are situated on the

property will not be disturbed by the development.

As shown on the site plan, the temporary use as tea garden/restaurant responds to the features of

the property. The setting adjacent to the river between the old basement and trees are proposed

to be used for the tea garden/restaurant. Parking will be provided within the boundaries of the

property with the access from Owen Grant Street. The loading space is provided from Owen Grant

Street and refuse removal in the south western corner of the property. This is logical space for ths

purpose as it is easily accessible to the basement which will be used for storage purposes and


6

other operational needs during the phase 1 of the development. The area will be screened. It is

also located the furthest away from many dwellings.

On top of the basement a temporary kitchen/payment/reception area will be created for the tea

garden/restaurant and plant nursery. Containers will be used so that it can be easily be removed

again prior to the commencement of the construction of the guest lodge and restaurant. The

plant nursery will be accommodated in the area amongst the trees. It will provide the residents of

Wilderness and tourists the opportunity to browse indigenous plants whilst they are given an

opportunity to enjoy coffee and tea. When visiting Wilderness, it can be seen how people walk

along the Waterside Road between the area towards the east and the Village towards the west.

Wilderness is a pedestrian friendly area with another stopping point to be provided on Erf 493,

Wilderness.

Spatial sustainability and spatial efficiency is supported as a vacant residential property within the

urban edge of Wilderness will be used to its maximum potential. Tourism is the heart of the

Wilderness economy hence the proposal is in support of this attribute. Phase 2 of the proposal for

Erf 493, Wilderness will support the character of Wilderness and create another stopping point for

the residents and visitors.

When the guest lodge and restaurant is developed in the near future, the development

parameters of the zoning scheme by-law will be followed. Combination of the temporary

departure, rezoning and consent use application ensures that all information is available to the

residents of Wilderness in limiting any anticipated future comments. The proposal referred to in this

application poses no negative influence to the surrounding area.

PART I: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Methods of advertising Date published Closing date for objections

Press Y N N/A 22 June 2018 23 July 2018

Gazette Y N N/A

Notices Y N N/A 22 June 2018 23 July 2018

WebSite Y N N/A

Ward councillor Y N N/A 22 June 2018 23 July 2018

On-site display Y N N/A

Community

organisation(s) Y N N/A

Public meeting Y N N/A

Third parties Y N N/A

O

th

er Y N

If yes,

specify

Neighbour’s Consent

Letters and

Departmental

Comments

Total valid

objections 7

Total invalid objections

and petitions 0

Valid petition(s) Y N If yes, number of signatures

Community

organisation(s)

response Y N N/A Ward councillor response Y N

N/

A

Total letters of

support 2

Was the minimum requirement for public participation undertaken in accordance with relevant Bylaw on

Municipal Land Use Planning and any applicable Council Policy Y N


7

PART J: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Wilderness Ratepayers & Resident Association (WRRA)

I. The WRRA states that a tea garden/nursery and a guest lodge/restaurant could contribute

to the tranquil, visitor-friendly nature in and around the Village centre. It is even speculated

that the streets and area around the Village Common may well become a secondary

central hub of the Village and this development would be one component of such growth.

If undertaken tastefully and carefully, these activities would add to the appealing

character of the Village.

II. A two-phase developed is understandable only if the first phase is directly linked to the

second. In this case, is it however, stated that they are not. To build and establish a tea

garden/nursery completely with containers has no connection to a guest

lodge/restaurant. Indeed, there is no mention that the tea garden/nursery would remain

and be an integral part of the guest lodge/restaurant.

III. A tea garden/nursery would have to be removed in order to further development of the

land. It seems that what is being proposed as a first phase is simply a quick and low cost

way to utilize the land on a so-called temporary basis, followed by an unrelated use as a

second stage. It is believed that to use the land in one way for four years and permanent

not temporary. Worse, there is no assurance that it will be demolished in four years.

IV. If the applicant wishes to develop a guest lodge/restaurant, he should apply for that

purpose now, not simply asking for something else ‘in the interim’, prior to commencement

of construction.

V. The proposal states that the containers will be used, but the images on pages 5 and 6 of

the motivation report do not show any containers. In case, containers have a way of

becoming permanent and certainly none should be allowed in such a prominent and

visible place on the common. We urge that the applicant utilize something like a ‘wendy

house’ if necessary, as an office and kitchen sufficient for tea garden.

VI. No details are provided about the guest lodge/restaurant. How big will the restaurant be?

How many guest rooms will it have? Is it going to be one building or two? The size of the

buildings? Will the restaurant be open to the public or only for guests? if the application

submitted was only for guest lodge/restaurant, these are only some of the issues that Town

Planning must consider, but as no detail att is provided, no second phase should be

considered.

VII. The proposal states that the ‘area will be screened’. What area? Screened from what?

What kind of screening?

VIII. WRRA is concerned about any increase of traffic on Owen Grant Street, given its size (too

small), condition (poor) and current demand (exacerbated by the failure to provide

adequate parking and indgress/egress to Palms Garden Square).

IX. The Village Common is integral to the character of the Village. Any development adjacent

to it must not impinge on its natural state.

X. If this development is to actually make a positive contribution to the Village, the serious

existing Village parking problem must be solved. It is not enough that this development

provides adequate parking for its patrons, both a tea garden/nursery and maybe a guest

lodge/restaurant. Parking anywhere in the Village must be viewed as an entire Village

problem. It can be anticipated that on the occasions that more parking is required –

namely, during the three annual very busy holiday periods – the municipality must be

aware of the impact of every new development, no matter how small and contained, on

the local parking situation.

XI. There must be no discharge of any kind into the river.

XII. SANParks and Cape Nature must provide comments to the municipality.


8

XIII. The OSCA permit will dictate design based on what the vegetation must be preserved, so

it is suggested that Town Planning review the OSCA planning prior to approval of any part

of the application.

Wilderness & Lakes Environmental Action Forum (WALEAF)

I. WALEAF does not object to the rezoning to General Residential Zone V. It could not be

found on the application documents the number of guest rooms that the owner wishes to

have on the guest lodge. The omission of the number of guest rooms could have a serious

ramification in the future, as if the number is not specified now, the owner could add

infinitum. We feel that the number of guest rooms must be set out now, and not left

unspecified.

II. WALEAF therefore objects to the fact that the number of guest rooms has not been

specified (even though there is no objection to the rezoning of the property to General

Residential Zone V). WALEAF reserves their right to withdraw the objection, should the

number of guest rooms be acceptable to them.

III. WALEAF has no objection with regards to the proposed Consent Use in terms of Section

15(2)(o) of the Land Use Planning B-law for George Municipality, 2015 to allow for a

restaurant on the property (Phase 2). However, parking requirements should be obliged

with.

IV. WALEAF does not object to the Temporary Departure in terms of Section 15(2)(c) of the

Land Use Planning B-law for George Municipality, 2015 to allow for a tea garden and plant

nursery (Phase 1) on Erf 493, Wilderness. However, parking requirements should be obliged

with.

V. As the number of guest rooms has not been specified, it will not be possible to determine

the number of parking bays which will be required. As the application is applying for a

restaurant and tea garden, a nursery and guest lodge, WALEAF if of the opinion that the

number of parking bays indicated on the site plan will not be sufficient for this proposed

development. Wilderness has a chronic lack of parking facilities in season, and therefore

sufficient parking space should be provided on Erf 493, Wilderness to cater for the worst

case scenario.

VI. As staff in nurseries generally fertilise their bagged plants, WALEAF is worried about the

fertiliser passing through the bags, going into the soil, polluting the ground water, ultimately

leaching out into the Touw River, which is to the east of the proposed plant nursery. This

part of Touw River is often utilised for recreational purposes, and any leaching of fertiliser

into the river will be to the detriment of the quality of the water.

VII. WALEAF is concerned about possible visual impact and therefore states that this proposed

development is at that bottom (east) of the Wilderness Common, which looks onto Touw

River lagoon, the visual impact on the view from the top (west) of the common should be

minimised as much as possible. As the number of guest rooms has not been quantified, it is

exceedingly difficult to visualise this development and perceive the possible visual impact,

as we have no idea of the size of the proposed guest lodge.

VIII. In the last paragraphs of WALEAF’s comment extracts from the Wilderness-Lakes-Hoekwil

Local Spatial Development Framework (WLH LSDF) is listed.

South African National Parks (SANParks)

I.SANParks has no objection to the application and support the following:

• A natural green barrier of least 4.5m on the boundaries adjacent to the Garden Route

National Park;


9

• Stormwater management should be done according to Sustainable Drainage Systems

(SUDS) principles;

• Fertilizer from the nursery should be managed not to pollute the ground water.

II. SANParks would like to review the Site Development Plan when it becomes available.

L’Azur Body Corporation (Erf 2067, Wilderness)

I. Firstly, the L’Azur Body Corporate objects to the temporary departure for a tea garden and

nursery for the following reasons:

• As it is a commercial undertaking on a property not zoned for the purpose. It will lead to

the spreading of the commercial node in to the peaceful residential areas of Wilderness.

It is not a commercial site and was never intended to be;

• The property owner has sufficient commercially zoned land available at the Wilderness

Hotel rear, should he wish to open such a business;

• A container is not a building and not acceptable as a premises in any event. It is not

suitable for Wilderness;

• The objector cannot approve a temporary business license for 4 years on a residential site.

II. Secondly, the L’Azur Body Corporate objects to the rezoning from Single Residential Zone I

to General Residential Zone V – guest lodge for the following reasons:

• There is no proof that Wilderness actually requires more guest house accommodation;

• Current accommodation establishments are not operating at full yield or capacity and

already some struggle in the off season;

• The property is zoned for single residential purposes. The L’Azur Body Corporate has no

objection to the owner exercising his rights to build a residential home which can be used

for e.g. Airbnb or such other option;

• The objector states that they cannot allow any owner to convert his property from

residential to a commercial type zoned property because he wants to make money out

of the property. The hotel can be expanded to create more rooms.

III. Thirdly the L’Azur Body Corporate objects to the consent use for a restaurant for the

following reasons:

• A restaurant is a commercial undertaking and a for profit business as is every other

restaurant. This is not a commercial node and we do not want a commercial node

expanded at the whim and request of every resident and property owner;

• A disastrous precedent will be created;

• There is already an abundance of restaurants in Wilderness and few are operating near full

capacity and especially out of season. There is no proof of this requirement in the area;

• There are other site options available to this property owner should he wish to establish a

restaurant. He could build another restaurant at the hotel or buy one;

M Sher (Erf 369, Waterside Road, Wilderness)

I. This objector states that he lived next to a restaurant for 4 years and objects for the following

reasons:

• High noise and unpleasant smells;

• Vermin such as rats and cockroaches;


10

• Seagulls scavenges overflowing refuse bins;

• Restaurant patrons taking up parking in the street.

II. The objector asks if there are not enough restaurants in Wilderness;

III. The objector is of the opinion that Erf 493, Wilderness is too small for a tea garden and

nursery;

IV. The objector is not opposed to the guest lodge as he himself rents spare rooms to tourists;

V. The objector is of the opinion that the proposal will be negative regarding the value of his

property and that of the neighbours and will not benefit Wilderness.

T Rose obo CH Burger & G Partington (Erven 342 & 332, Limberlost Lane, Wilderness)

I. The establishment of a tea garden is supported and seemingly also the guest lodge and

restaurant;

II. The following questions are asked with regards to the temporary departure:

• No reference is made to the length of time these structures will be in use apart from ‘in

the near future’. But it is assumed that they will be there for at least 4 years;

• There is no detail referring to how these structures will be made to fit into the general

building and aesthetic standards in this part of Wilderness.

• No detail is given to the temporary structures that will make up the tea garden. The

concept picture of a tent is just that, a concept, and may bear no relation to what may

actually go up.

• Any form of tent in the Wilderness environment has a limited life span before it starts

looking dirty and stained with all the moisture and road soot. There is no tent in the site

plan or where any proposed decking will be erected.

III. Mr Rose states that the property owners he represents objects to the use of containers as

temporary or permanent structures unless adequate proof can be provided that any

such structure will match the general aesthetic standards of this part of Wilderness and

that the final development takes place as soon as possible and not in the near future.

IV. The establishment of a tea garden/nursery for a period of 4 years prior to the construction

of a Guest House, leads a person to ponder over why? If the intention is to build an

upmarket facility (in the near future) is going to be delayed by the operation of a tea

garden, why not start immediately.

C Ploughman (Erf 367, Waterside Road, Wilderness)

I. This objector states that the natural beauty of Wilderness is priority and not commercial

services.

II. Erf 493, Wilderness is far from the centralised commercial district and will be an alone-

standing public business. A residential area is located between the commercial area

and this property.

III. Approval will create a precedent. Visible public commercial areas must always be

centralised.

IV. It is not fair to existing commercial business owners to now relax the rules.

V. A commercial business will block the view over the lagoon of properties in Waterside

Road. The public will lose the last direct view over the lagoon.

VI. The application for a nursery is suspicious as the market for plants are small in this area

and only a few jobs will be created.

VII. Temporary structures for a temporary consent will be negative for the entire area.


11

PG Esselaar (Erf 346, Limberlost Lane, Wilderness)

I. The objector states that Phase 2 will exacerbate the problem with multiple tenants in the

guest lodge, their visitors, and the patrons of the restaurant. Owen Grant Street is not

suitable for two-way traffic and during the season it is impossible to move through the

Village.

II. The Palm Square development has increased the pressure for parking in front of the

Wilderness Hotel. The objector is of the opinion that no thought was given to the problem

of parking when Palm Square was approved.

III. The objector states that little parking is available for visitors to the lagoon area. Additional

pressure should not be contemplated.

IV. The objector states that a nursery, tea garden, lodge or restaurant is not needed in the

middle of Wilderness. The outskirts should be used for this purpose where traffic and

parking do not create a gridlock and unsightly problem.

JR Osrin (Erf 371, Waterside Road, Wilderness)

I. The objector states that the Village is a viable and busy commercial area with numerous

restaurants and coffee shops. Therefore, there is no need for a scheme that will intrude in

a quiet residential haven.

II. A new commercial development will bring more traffic, noise and delivery vehicles to the

peaceful life of residents here.

III. There is an oversupply of guest houses in the area including a hotel.

IV. A nursery with compost and manure can attract flies and other insects and with the

water shortage, how will the plants be sustained?

V. To consider the use of containers no matter for how long, is totally unacceptable.

PART K: SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REPLY TO OBJECTIONS

The response to the comments received can be summarised as follows:


I. The positive comment by the WRRA is reflected in the business development found on Erf

2081, Wilderness adjacent to the opposite corner of the Village Common.

II. The two phases are linked through the restaurant. A guest lodge (General Residential Zone

V) can have a restaurant as consent use. This is exactly as indicated and motivated in our

motivation report. The containers will be removed to make place for the construction of the

guest lodge with a subservient restaurant as determined by the George Integrated Zoning

Scheme By-law (GIZS). Where the nature of the temporary departure names the restaurant

a tea garden, in the permanent structure it will be called a restaurant.

III. As stated in paragraph the two phases are not unrelated. The temporary departure might

seem like ‘low cost’ development for some, but the cost involved to establish a facility as

proposed and indicated in our motivation report, is definitely not low cost.

The temporary departure for the tea garden/nursery will be managed by the conditions of

approval. The Town Planning Section of George Municipality has a good track record of

ensuring compliance with conditions of approval.

IV. The application includes the rezoning for the guest lodge with consent for the restaurant as

shown in our complete land use application. A land use approval must be implemented,

and all conditions of approval met within 5 years. This formed the phased approach of this

development proposal.


12

All intentions of the owner with the development of this property in an amazing locality in

Wilderness is put on the table.

V. Containers are not permanent. As they can be placed on a site rather easily, they can also

be removed easily. Containers are used more and more in creative ways. Screening is also

used in many instances.

The images in the motivation report shows the atmosphere the owner wishes to create – it is

not renders for the specific property. The containers will complement the end result. The

required plans will be submitted to the Aesthetics Committee for their approval following this

land use application.

The images provided in the motivation report clearly show a ‘high end’ proposal to

compliment the character of Wilderness.

A ‘Wendy House’ could create a total different atmosphere.

VI. The motivation report addresses the this comment from WRRA. As stated the building lines

of General Residential Zone V – guest lodge is taken into account for also the temporary

departure. The table below comes from the motivation report and summarises the

development parameters applicable to a guest lodge and the ancillary restaurant. This is

compered in the table below with the development parameters applicable to a single

residential dwelling – the current primary land use right.

Single Residential Zone I General Residential Zone

V – guest lodge with

consent use for a

restaurant

Height 6.5m to wall plate & 8.5m

to top of roof

8.5m to top of roof

Coverage 500m² or 40%, whichever

is greater (715.2m²)

60% (1072.8m²)

Floor Factor n/a 1 (1788m²)

Street building line 5.0m 5.0m

Side & Rear building line 3.0m 4.5m

Parking 2 bays per dwelling Guest lodge: 1 bay per

bedroom; 2 bays per

owner’s home /

manager’s flat; 1 bay for

visitors/ employees.

Restaurant: ±4 bays per

100m² GLA

Site development plan n/a To be submitted

The motivation report clearly showed what will form the proposed guest lodge and

restaurant and that a site development plan will be submitted prior to the approval of

building plans. These plans will also be submitted to the Aesthetics Committee for their

approval.

As stated in our motivation report, the provision of parking within the boundaries of the

property will be an important factor forming the guest lodge.

The proposed restaurant will be open to the public with the guest lodge being the dominant

use of the property in accordance with the GIZS. The proposed restaurant which will follow

the tea garden/restaurant and nursery will ensure that this beautiful location accessible to

the general public and not only the guests.

VII. ‘Area will be screened’ as detailed in the applicants motivation report, it means that:

‘As shown on the site plan, the temporary use as tea garden/restaurant responds to the

features of the property. The setting adjacent to the river between the old basement and

trees are proposed to be use for the tea garden/restaurant. Parking will be provided within


13

the boundaries of the property with access from Owen Grant Street. Loading space is

provided from Owen Grant Street and refuse removal in the south western corner of the

property. This is the logical space for this purpose as it is easily accessible to the basement

which will be used for storage purposes and other operational needs. The area will be

screened. It is also located the furthest away from any dwellings.’

The loading space and refuse area will be screened. This is in accordance with Section 25

of the GIZS. This will also be shown in the plans to be considered by the Aesthetics

Committee.

VIII. Owen Grant Street is a municipal, public road. It seems that Palms Garden Square is not

complying with its conditions of approval. According to our understanding this is being

attended to by the Town Planning Section at present.

The access including loading as shown on the site development plan submitted with the

application, was discussed prior to submission with the Department Civil Engineering

Services. Access from Waterside Road is not desirable due to the distributor-nature of this

road.

IX. The comment regarding the character and the nature of the development being integrated

with the character of the Village Common is fully understood and agreed with by the

applicant.

X. One small development cannot be expected to be responsible for a wider parking

challenge. It is expected that when the GIPTN (GoGeorge) is expanded into Wilderness, this

will bring a tremendous relief to Wilderness. The GIPTN should also be designed in such a

way that shorter, more frequent routes should be provided to accommodate especially

tourists and visitors. Wilderness enjoys the company of many overseas visitors who are used

to public transport.

Political will is needed to further roll out the GIPTN.

XI. The comment regarding discharge into the river has been noted will be complied with.

XII. Comments from SANParks and Cape Nature have been requested.

XIII. When visiting the property and considering the site plan (which followed a survey to also

indicate protected vegetation) it is clear that vegetation that must be preserved will not be

affected. This is also reflected in the comment from SANParks (who visited the property)

addressed in paragraph 6 of this letter of reply.


I. This comment is addressed in paragraph VI above.

No property owner can just add guest rooms. Building plans must be submitted which is only

considered on the basis of an approved site development plan.

If WALEAF, an environmental organisation, read the applicable sections of the GIZS, they will

know that a guest lodge is normally an establishment with more than 6 guest rooms. As

stated in the motivation report and in the comments above, the provision of parking will be

a very important factor forming the guest house and restaurant.

It is made clear in the motivation report that the parameters of the GIZS will be adhered to.

Balance must be found between the parking provision for the guest lodge and the

restaurant. The guest lodge will be the dominant use of the property. The addition of a

restaurant will make this beautiful location accessible to the general public and not only the

guests.

I. WALEAF as an environmental organisation should not focus on number of guest rooms. They

should rather have objected if relaxation of building lines where requested that could

impact on the milkwood trees that is found in the building line area of the property.


14

Theoretically it is possible to construct a primary dwelling in accordance with the zoning

parameters of a dwelling house which could be more detrimental than the proposed guest

lodge and restaurant (phase 2).

II. Noted. Their comment regarding parking is addressed in paragraph 6 below.

III. Noted. Their comment regarding parking is addressed in paragraph 6 below.

IV. The number of parking bays required for a guest lodge is indicated in the motivation report

and also in paragraphs above.

WALEAF’s opinion is based on not understanding zoning parameters which is not expected

of an environmental organisation.

The parking dilemma of Wilderness is addressed above.

V. This comment is noted and will be addressed. Conditions from the Municipality are

expected in this regard. This matter is also addressed in the comment from SANParks who is

the neighbour to the south and east and custodian of the Garden Route National Park of

which the Touw River is an integral part.

VI. The applicant feels that WALEAF did not read the motivation report. Erf 493, Wilderness has

a primary land use right to construct a dwelling house in accordance with the parameters

indicated in short in the table from a section of the motivation report and repeated and

addressed above.

The size of the guest lodge is determined by the relevant development parameters as

contained in the GIZS which included building lines, parking requirements, and height and

floor factor.

VII. All matters that are relevant and addressed by WALEAF, are addressed in the motivation

report.

South African National Parks (SANParks)

I. In response to SANParks’ comments, the green barrier is created by the 4.5m building line

where the protected vegetation will not be touched.

Storm-water management is addressed in building plans and checked by the Department:

Civil Engineering Services.

The necessary steps will be taken to ensure that fertilizer does not pollute the ground water.

II. Reviewing of an SDP when the application has been finalised is a positive comment from an

environmental organisation understanding how processes occur.

L’Azur Body Corporation (Erf 2067, Wilderness)

I. The L’Azur Body Corporate is correct in stating that the property is not zoned for a tea garden

and nursery. That is why an application for a temporary departure was submitted. It is fully

understood that the dominant use of the property cannot remain that of a tea garden and

nursery. That is why at the same time the application for rezoning for a guest lodge and

consent use for a restaurant is submitted for consideration.

The L’Azur Body Corporate states that the property was never intended to be a commercial

site. They are not correct as this property was the post office of Wilderness until the structure

was demolished approximately 30 years ago by the previous owner. The previous owner

obtained approval for the first 16-bedroom guest house in Wilderness for this property during

the late 1990’s. He never exercised this land use approval, but the property did have

commercial land use rights as referred to by the objector. For that fact any residential

property with a dwelling house in Wilderness has commercial rights for two guest rooms (as

defined by bed and breakfast establishment). Therefore, to state that the property was

never intended to be a commercial site is factually incorrect.


15

In support of the above, an image is attached to the applicant’s response to show a

structure that was previously on the property.

The applicant futher states that containers are re-used more and more as it is a sustainable

practise. Sustainability is a requirement of Section 7 of SPLUMA (see motivation report and

conclusion in paragraph 14 below). With screening and other architectural features, it is

possible to not even realise that the end result consists of containers. Containers are used in

other locations in Wilderness not only for storage purposes and also in George for

commercial activities.

The statement by the body corporate that they cannot ‘approve a temporary business

license for 4 years on a residential site’ is not motivated or supported.

II. The applicant believes that in order to know how many guest accommodation

establishments exists in Wilderness is difficult to determine as everyone is not registered with

one body. The primary land use right of 2 guest bedrooms for every dwelling house makes

it even more challenging. Wilderness is a popular tourist destination, internationally and

locally. To restrict accommodation will stifle this industry in Wilderness and surrounds.

Most accommodation establishments have off seasons which owners use to have a holiday

and do maintenance. Not being as busy all year round is also why it is called the off season.

As the body corporate states that they do not mind the owner providing accommodation

through ‘Airbnb or such other option’ seems that they do not have an objection to the

principle of providing guest accommodation. Whether guest accommodation is provided

through 2, 6 or 8 guest bedrooms is beside the point – it remains a guest accommodation

establishment.

The statement made by the L’Azur Body Corporate in the last point of this section is

unacceptable. The owner of Erf 493, Wilderness is Ballprop Fourteen CC. The Wilderness

Hotel (Erf 1231, Wilderness) is a sectional title scheme with numerous owners. Whether a

member of this CC or the Sectional Title Scheme might be the same person, is irrelevant in

the consideration of a land use application.

Any person/entity with commercial interests wishes to ‘make money’ as this is how income is

generated and employment opportunities created. It should be mentioned that a simple

Google-search indicates that at least 3 of the L’Azur Flats is rented out as self-catering

accommodation. This is an example of a commercial activity where the owner could have

the same intentions as any other accommodation establishment.

The body corporate states that they ‘cannot allow any owner to convert his property from

residential to a commercial type zoned property because he wants to make money out of

the property’. If this is the case, then the members of L’Azur Body Corporate renting their

units as self-catering accommodation is doing it in conflict with the view of their body

corporate.

This ground for objecting to the guest lodge is therefore not substantiated.

III. As stated in the motivation report and earlier in this letter of reply, the restaurant will not be

the dominant use of the property. It will however make it for the general public possible to

access this beautiful location close to the mouth of the Touw River and experience what

Wilderness is all about.

The comment from the body corporate referring to ‘we do not want a commercial node

expanded at the whim and request of every resident and property owner’ is unfounded

considering all relevant facts.

Stating that a disastrous precedent will be created is unmotivated and not possible

considering all relevant planning considerations. In Freesia Lane a guest house with a

restaurant is also located adjacent to the Touw River. The latter is the best restaurant in

Wilderness and one of the best in South Africa. It was established in 2001. If the proposed

guest lodge and restaurant proposed for Erf 493, Wilderness will be a ‘disastrous precedent’;

the ‘disastrous precedent’ was already established in 2001.


16

Restaurants are also located at Pirates Creek, adjacent to the NSRI and at the Wilderness

Station. Not all restaurants found in Wilderness is located only at the Village or at The Waves.

The comment regarding restaurants is therefore also questionable as with the body

corporate’s comment regarding guest accommodation establishments. There are a few

restaurants in the greater Wilderness which always seems to be busy. To prevent another

opening in a location that lends itself to the purpose will be short sighted. It will prevent

visitors and residents enjoying the location reflecting the character of Wilderness adjacent

to the Touw River.

Stating that the owner of Erf 493 Wilderness can ‘build another restaurant at the hotel or buy

one’ is an unacceptable comment. As indicated earlier the owner of the subject property

and the Wilderness Hotel is not the same entity.

This ground for objecting to the guest lodge is therefore not substantiated.

M Sher (Erf 369, Waterside Road, Wilderness)

I. The concerns raised by the objector are mitigated as the nature of the tea garden and

subsequent restaurant forming part of a guest lodge will be directed towards the Touw Rivier

mouth and the N2-route. Parking is provided along the northern boundary of Erf 493,

Wilderness. There is a distance of 40-45m between the objector’s property and the proposed

tea garden and most likely the future restaurant. The loading and refuse area is also placed

as far as possible from neighbours – the site development plan was designed with this factor

in mind.

As stated in the motivation report, Erf 493, Wilderness is separated from surrounding properties

and is like an ‘island’. Operational activities will be directed away from surrounding

properties. The proposed land use (phase 1 and 2) will be directed to the river and again

away from properties to the north and west to enjoy the views over the Touw River.

Vermin such as rats and cockroaches are most likely a general problem in Wilderness due to

the moist climate.

To address the concern regarding seagull the refuse area could be fully enclosed.

Parking is provided within the boundaries of the property in accordance with the GIZS. The

objector does not border directly onto Erf 493 Wilderness with Waterside Road in between.

It is expected that not all patrons of the proposed tea garden and future restaurant will park

within the boundaries of the property. Some will walk and unfortunately some people will

always park as they wish and where they wish. The latter is a matter for law enforcement.

II. Wilderness is a popular destination for tourists and residents of the Southern Cape. The

restaurants are always busy, and, in most instances, booking is essential. The tea garden

and later a restaurant is proposed in a unique location to the benefit of all visiting and living

in Wilderness.

III. In response to the objection regarding the size of the property, the applicant sates that the

only reply that they can provide to this comment is that the objector did not see the site

development plan submitted with the application.

IV. The applicant has noted the comment on number the fact that the objector does not argue

the rezoning to accommodate the guest lodge.

V. The proposed development of Erf 493, Wilderness will add value to Wilderness as destination.

It will also be to the benefit of the tourists using the self-catering accommodation offered by

the objector - they can just walk over the street and enjoy breakfast and/or a light meal.

The property abutting the objector on the eastern side (Erf 370, Wilderness) only has a

foundation structure. On Erf 493, Wilderness only the basement and steps of the structure

that was demolished approximately 30 years ago is left. It is expected that vacant properties

with incomplete structures are more negative regarding the value of properties in this area.


17

T Rose on behalf of CH Burger & G Partington (Erven 342 & 332, LImberlost Lane, Wilderness)

I. Support of the tea garden and plant nursery has been noted by the applicant.

II. The applicant states that Mr Rose is corrected in referring to 4 years.

Following land use approval, building plans are prepared and submitted to the Aesthetics

Committee of George Municipality for consideration. This Committee ensures that the

aesthetic standards of Wilderness are met.

The final structures to be constructed will be in accordance with the conditions of approval

and the decision of the Aesthetics Committee.

The site development plan submitted with the application is not a complete building plan

that includes elevations. The images included with the motivation report provide sufficient

information.

III. The comment regarding the use of the containers has been noted and addressed in above.

Please note that no power of attorney was attached to Mr Rose’s comment on behalf of CH

Burger & G Partington.

IV. The applicant states that it is not a planning consideration why an owner would start with

the second phase right away. Every property has the opportunity to submit a phased

development proposal if he or she so wishes. The detail of every business decision is not to

be supported or vetoed by those who are not business partners.

C Ploughman (Erf 367, Waterside Road, Wilderness)

I. The comment on prioritising the natural environment has been noted and agreed to.

However, the applicant states that it does not mean that no form of commercial activities is

found throughout Wilderness.

II. The applicants states that Erf 493, Wilderness is only approximately 160m from the closest

restaurant and approximately 530m from a central point in the Village. This cannot be

deemed as far away.

The applicant also makes not of the comments on number of guest house in the area, which

is mentioned above.

Erf 493, Wilderness is a single residential property located on its own with residential property

mixed with guest accommodation facilities and higher density housing. A public area of the

Garden Route National Park is located directly to the south and east with the Village

Common, a public open space, located directly to the west. The area from the Village to

past Erf 493, Wilderness is therefore characterised by a mix of land uses.

There are residential opportunities found in this area, but no homogenous residential area as

indicated by the objector.

III. The applicant makes again makes not of comments above, stating that the proposed

business activity will not set precedent in the area.

IV. No rules are being relaxed. A temporary departure is requested to utilise the unique position

Erf 493, Wilderness offers adjacent to the Touw River. The property was rezoned just over 20

years ago to General Residential Zone for a guest house with 16 guest rooms. The approval

was never implemented and therefore lapsed. The property originally accommodated the

Post Office as mentioned earlier in this letter of reply.

Various businesses focussed on the residents, tourist and visitors from the Southern Cape are

found throughout Wilderness.

V. The applicant states that it is clear that the objector was not aware that there is a property

located here zoned as Single Residential Zone I. The motivation report indicates in Section

5.7 the development parameters applicable to a property zoned Single Residential Zone I

compared to that of the proposed General Residential Zone V – guest lodge with consent

use for a restaurant.


18

This proposed facility on Erf 493, Wilderness will be accessible to the public to enjoy the view

over the lagoon.

VI. The applicant has noted the objector’s comment further stating that he aim is to create a

small nursery and not a big, commercial enterprise where people can enjoy looking at and

buying a few plans while enjoying a cup of tea.

VII. Applicant has noted. Comment with regards to the nature of the structures to be used for

the temporary departure is addressed above as well as the motivation report.

PG Esselaar (Erf 346, Limberlost Lane, Wilderness)

I. The applicant is of the impression that objector did not peruse the site development plan

submitted with the land use application. Ample parking is provided within the boundaries

of the property and indicated in the site development plan.

The aesthetics of the proposed development is addressed repeatedly throughout this letter

of reply.

II. Due to the development parameters applicable to a guest lodge and restaurant as shown

in the GIZS and discussed in the motivation report of the land use application, the proposed

guest lodge and restaurant will compare well to that of a single residential dwelling if the

latter was constructed on the property. As stated in the motivation report a balance must

be found between floor area and parking needed.

Owen Grant Street might be a gravel road with a narrow road surface. It however has a

reserve of between 10m and 13m and can therefore accommodate two-way traffic.

Wilderness has always had a tourism character and therefore certain times of the year more

people will be in the area and other times less.

III. The applicant’s comment regarding the possible non-compliance of Palm Square with their

conditions of approval is addressed earlier in this letter of reply.

IV. The lagoon area is part of the Garden Route Natianal Park. Ample parking is provided for

visitors to the lagoon on Erf 1096, Wilderness with access from the N2. Pedestrian access is

provided from Waterside Rod.

Hence the applicant finds the comment regarding parking to be unfounded.

V. As stated earlier and in the applicant’s motivation report the proposed development of Erf

493, Wilderness is located in an area with a mixed-use character. The unique location of the

property adjacent to the Touw River makes it a beautiful setting for visitors the area as well

as the local residents.

Parking provision and aesthetics have been addressed repeatedly in this letter of reply.

JR Osrin (Erf 371, Waterside Road, Wilderness)

I. As shown, the area where Erf 493, Wilderness is located has a mixed-use character. The

location of Erf 493, Wilderness is unique, and the aim is not to create a noisy establishment

but a peaceful place reflecting the character Wilderness is known for.

II. The applicant states that the extent of the development (phase 1 and 2) is limited due to

parking requirements. Therefore, traffic, noise and delivery vehicles are limited. The

placement of the access to the property and the point for deliveries where choses to

consider the residents to the north. This concern of this objector has therefore been

addressed and mitigated in the motivation report and with the proposed site development

plan submitted with the application.

III. Wilderness is a world renowned tourism destination with various B&B’s, guest houses, guest

lodges and hotels. It is also now a primary land use right for a single residential property to

provide two guest rooms as a B&B. To say there is an oversupply is irrelevant.


19

IV. The proposed nursery will be small and not a big, commercial enterprise where people can

enjoy looking at and buying a few plants while enjoying a cup of tea as stated earlier in the

report.

If compost and manure is provided, it will be bagged and supply limited due to the extent

of the operation. The focus will most likely be on indigenous, water wise, plants.

VI. This aspect (use of containers) has been addressed repeatedly in the report.

As they can be placed on a site rather easily, they can also be removed easily. Containers

are used more and more in creative ways. Screening is also used in many instances.

The images in the motivation report shows the atmosphere the owner wishes to create – it is

not renders for the specific property. The containers will complement the end result. The

required plans will be submitted to the Aesthetics Committee for their approval following this

land use application.

The images provided in the motivation report clearly show a ‘high end’ proposal to

compliment the character of Wilderness.

Conclusion

Many of the points of objection raised are not substantiated by town planning

considerations. Considering all comments received the principle of the phased

development is accepted. People are concerned about the aesthetics of the temporary

departure. This can however be addressed through conditions of approval and the plans

to be submitted for consideration by the Aesthetics Committee.

The images provided with the motivation report indicate the character and atmosphere

which the owner wishes to create. It will reflect the character of Wilderness and cannot be

regarded as undesirable on the balance of considerations.

As stated in applicant’s motivation report this development proposal cannot have a

negative economic impact as an existing, vacant property will be developed to its

maximum enhancing the tourism character and tourism economy of Wilderness. It will

create various temporary and permanent employment opportunities.

No neighbour will be overshadowed or overlooked especially as this property is located on

an ‘island’ away from other private properties. Operational activities will be directed away

from surrounding properties. The proposed land use (phase 1 and 2) will be directed to the

river and again away from properties to the north and west.

The motivation report and the reply to the comments received together with the site

development shows how the concerns and issues raised are mitigated.

No conflict or inconsistency with the relevant spatial plans were found as indicated in the

motivation report.

The following points summarises why the location of Erf 493, Wilderness justifies the proposed

two phased development proposal:

• Erf 493, Wilderness is a vacant single residential property located on its own surrounded by

roads, the Garden Route National Park, the Village Common and various typologies of

residential accommodation. No residential property of any nature borders directly onto this

property;


20

• The property is located adjacent to the Touw River and the Garden Route National Park

creating the opportunity to make a peaceful setting accessible to the tourist to Wilderness

and the residents of the area and Southern Cape;

• The site development plan submitted with the land use application shows how any possible

concerns are mitigated;

• The first phase will be a low-key development reflecting the peaceful character of

Wilderness;

• The second phase will provide a guest lodge comparable to the structure for a single

residential dwelling with a subservient restaurant still reflecting the natural and peaceful

character of Wilderness.

• Both phases of the development proposal will create a space reflecting the natural

character of Wilderness for the visitors and residents and therefore be an asset to the tourism

economy of Wilderness;

• This property accommodated the Post Office for many years and therefore has a history of

not being only a single residential property.

As stated in the motivation report spatial sustainability is supported as the use of a vacant

residential property within the urban edge of Wilderness is maximised. This is positive from an

environmental perspective especially within the Wilderness environment. This is linked to the

prevention of urban sprawl. It can further be stated regarding spatial sustainability as

discussed in SPLUMA that prime and unique agricultural land is not affected by this land use

application. The effective and equitable functioning of land markets is not negatively

affected by this land use application.

Regarding spatial efficiency this proposal cannot have a negative impact regarding

financial, social, economic or environmental considerations for the relevant authorities. They

can only gain from this proposal.

It is trusted that this land use application submitted for Erf 493, Wilderness will be favourably

considered by the Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal. All considerations of the Tribunal

have been addressed.

Subsequently to the initial evaluation of the application and objections received, it was

found that insufficient information was available to make a decision on the rezoning and

consent use applications. The applicant was requested to submit a site development plan

which meant that new comments had would be required from the objectors. The applicant

thus agreed to deal with the temporary departure now and address the rezoning and

consent use application next year.

PART L: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS AND/OR ORGANS OF STATE

COMMENTS Name of

Department Date Summary of comments Recommendation

N/A

PART M: MUNICIPAL PLANNING EVALUATION ( REFER TO RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GUIDELINE)

Is the proposal consistent with the principles referred to in chapter 2 of SPLUMA? (can be elaborated further

below) Y N

Is the proposal consistent with the principles referred to in chapter VI of LUPA? (can be elaborated further

below) Y N


21

Application history

The application was submitted in May 2018. There is no other application on the subject property

following the lapsing of a land use application for 16 bedroom guest house in the year 2000.

(In)consistency with the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act 16 of 2013)

as we as the principles referred to in Chapter Vl of the Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of

2014) (Section 65 of the By-law)

The consistency of the application with the principles of SPLUMA and LUPA as read with Section 65

of the By-law was evaluated as follows:

No

Evaluation checklist (s. 65) Yes No N/A

1(a) Does the application submitted comply with the provisions of this bylaw? x

Has the motivation submitted been considered? x

1(b) Were the correct procedures followed in processing the application? (see land use

application process checklist) x

Was a condonation required and granted with regards to the process followed? (see

land use application process checklist) x

1(c) Have the desirability guidelines as issued by the provincial minister to the utilise land for

the proposed land uses been considered? x

1(d) Have the comments received from the respondents, any organs of state and the

provincial minister been considered? (s. 45 of LUPA) x

1(e) Have the comments received from the applicant been considered? x

1(f) Have investigations carried out in terms of other laws and that are relevant to the

application being considered? x

1(g) Was the application assessed by a registered town planner? (see land use application

process checklist) x

1(h) Has the impact of the proposed development on municipal engineering services been

considered? x

1(i) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the IDP of the municipality? x

Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the municipal SDF? x

1(j) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the IDP of the district

municipality including its SDF? x

1(k) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the structure plan

applicable to the area? x

1(l) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the local SDF applicable to

the area? x

1(m

)

Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with any other municipal policy

or by-law applicable to the proposed land use? x

1(n) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the provincial SDF? x

1(o) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the regional SDF (SPLUMA)

or provincial regional SDF (LUPA)? x

1(p) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the applicable guidelines,

standards, principles, norms or criteria set by national and/or provincial government? x

1(r) Is the application in line the consistent and/or compatible with the following principles

as contained in section 7 of SPLUMA / 59 of LUPA:


22

1. The redress spatial and other development imbalances of the past through

improved access to and use of land? x

2.

Address the inclusion of persons and areas previously excluded in the past,

specifically informal settlements and areas characterised by wide-spread

poverty and deprivation?

x

3. Enable the redress of access to land by disadvantaged communities and

persons? x

4. Does the application support access to / facilitate the obtaining of security of

tenure and/or incremental informal settlement upgrading? x

5. Has the potential impact of the development proposal on the value of the

affected land /properties been considered? x

6. The impact of the application on the existing rights of the surrounding owners

been recognised? x

7. Does the application promote spatially compact, resource frugal development

form? x

8.

Can the development be accommodated within the existing fiscal (budget),

institutional and administrative means of the municipality? (e.g. Infrastructure

upgrades required – when, budgeted for, etc)

x

9. Has the protection of prime, unique and/or high potential agricultural land been

considered? x

10. Is the application consistent with the land use measures applicable to /

contained in environmental management instruments? x

11. Does the application promote and stimulate the equitable and effective

functioning of land markets? x

12. Have all current and future costs to all parties for the provision of infrastructure

and social services been considered? x

13.

Does the application promote development that is sustainable, discourages

urban sprawl, encourages residential densification and promotes a more

compact urban form?

x

14. Will the development result in / promote the establishment of viable

communities? x

15. Does the development strive to ensure that the basic needs of all the citizens are

met in an affordable way? x

16. Will the development sustain and/or protect natural habitats, ecological

corridors and areas of high bio-diversity importance? x

17. Will the development sustain and/or protect provincial heritage and tourism

resources? x

18.

Will the development sustain and/or protect areas unsuitable for development

including floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, areas with a high water table, and

landscapes and features of cultural significance?

x

19. Will the development sustain and/or protect the economic potential of the

relevant area or region? x

20. Has provision been made in the development to mitigate against the potential

impacts of climate change? x

21.

Does the development include measures to reduce consumption / conserve

water and energy resources? (renewable energy, energy saving, water saving,

etc)

X

22. Does the development take into account sea-level rise, flooding, storm surges,

fire hazards? x

23. Does the development take into account geological formations and

topographical (soil and slope) conditions? x

24. Will the development discourage illegal land occupation – w.r.t. Informal land

development practices? x

25.

Does the development benefit the long term social, economic and

environmental priorities for the area (sustained job opportunities, sustained

income, integrated open space network, etc) over any short term benefits (job

creation during construction, short term economic injection, etc)?

x


23

26. Does the development contribute towards the optimal use of existing resources,

infrastructure, agriculture, land, minerals and/or facilities? x

27. Does the development contribute towards social, economic, institutional and

physical integration aspects of land use planning? x

28. Promotes and supports the inter-relationships between rural and urban

development? x

29. Does the development promote the availability of employment and residential

opportunities in close proximity to each other or the integration thereof? x

30. Does the development promote the establishment of a diverse combination of

land uses? x

31. Does the development contribute towards the correction of distorted spatial

patterns of settlements within the town/city/village? x

32. Does the development contribute towards and /or promote the creation of a

quality and functional open spatial environment? x

33.

Will the development allow the area or town to be more spatially resilient that

can ensure a sustainable livelihood for the affected community most likely to be

affected by economic and environmental shocks?

x

1(s)

Is the application in line with the applicable provisions contained in the applicable

zoning scheme regulations (by-law)? (e.g. Definitions, land use description and

development parameters)

x

Comments:

The proposed temporary departure to accommodate a tea garden and plant nursery (phase I) is

consistent with the development principles and norms and standards of SPLUMA, because the

proposed land use fits into the surrounding natural environment as well as the existing built

character formed by the adjacent land-uses, which are of low to medium density residential.

The proposal is consistent with the principles referred in LUPA, considering the existing surrounding

land uses.

(In)consistency with the IDP/Various levels of SDF’s/Applicable policies

The application is consistent with the objectives of the SDF. The application may be implemented

as it complements the natural setting of the subject property. Based on site specifics, the

proposal is undoubtedly linked with the surrounding character of the area.

Wilderness is a tourist orientated town. Tourism is the spine to the economy of the area, hence

consideration of the temporary departure for this purposes cannot be seen as a detract from the

goals of the IDP for the area or the LSDF.

(In)consistency with guidelines prepared by the Provincial Minister

N/A

Outcomes of investigations/applications i.t.o other laws

N/A


24

Existing and proposed zoning comparisons and considerations

The property falls within an area that is predominantly residential in nature. With land uses ranging

from low to higher density, guesthouses and guest lodges to and business properties. The proposed

use for a tea garden and plant nursery (As shown on the attached SDP) will be a temporary activity

on the property. This proposal will be an entirely different activity as compared to that of the

existing zoning.

The need and desirability of the proposal

The need and desirability of the proposal has been considered in terms of the following factors:

No

Yes No N/A

1 Will the natural environment and/or open space systems be negatively affected? X

2 Will application result in trees/indigenous vegetation being removed on site or in the

road reserve? X

3 Does the application have any negative impact on heritage resources? X

4 Will the character of the surrounding area be negatively affected? X

5 Will the architectural character of the streetscape be negatively affected? X

6 Will there be any negative impact on vehicle traffic and pedestrian safety? X

7 Will there be a negative impact on traffic movement? X

8 Will there be a negative impact on vehicle sight distances? X

9 Is there adequate on-site parking / loading facilities provided? X

10 Is there adequate vehicle access/ egress to the property? X

11 Will the neighbour’s amenity to sunlight be negatively affected? X

12 Will the application result in overshadowing onto neighbours properties? X

13 Will the neighbours’ amenity to privacy / enjoyment of their property/views be

negatively affected? X

14 Will the proposal have a negative impact on scenic vistas or intrude on the skyline X

15 Will the intended land use have a negative impact on adjoining uses? X

16 Will the land use pose a potential danger to life or property in terms of fire risks, air

pollution or smells or compromise a person’s right to a safe and secure environment? X

17 Will there be a negative impact on property values? X

18 Will the application result in a nuisance, noise nuisance, and disturbance to

neighbours? X

19 Will adequate open space and/or recreational space be provided (for residential

developments)? X

20 Will approval of the application set a precedent? X


25

Comment:

The application will not result in any negative impact on the adjoining properties nor will it

introduce a dissimilar land use activity within the vicinity.

Assessment of objections/comments

The owner wishes to utilise the property for a tea garden and restaurant with a small plant nursery

to complement this use and the setting of its location.

• As detailed in the motivational report, the application is subjected to a number of

objections received from the participating role players based on the grounds that an

application of such nature may not be phased;

• The property will not be able to meet the necessary parking requirements;

• The development may cause a disturbance within the residential neighbourhood,

arguments on the natural environment and some effects regarding the vegetation and

use of chemicals for the plant nursery;

• The rezoning of a residential property and other impacts that may arise due to the change

of use of this property.

It is clear that a number of the comments posed to the proposed development are not of a land

use consideration as discussed in the comments section. The comments received are mostly based

on consideration of the neighbourhood aspect.

In terms of the LSDF, the area where the subject area is situated (the Village and surround) is

demarcated for residential activities but also encourages development of tourism related facilities

and attractions in order to embrace the area as a tourism destination. The core business area of

the node is indicated on the local spatial development framework map, but consideration should

be given to proposals for tourism facilities outside and in close proximity to this area if it builds onto

the tourism industry and does not affect the surrounding residential or natural areas.

In the past, the property was used as a post office which is also a commercial activity. The owner

may apply in terms of the Land Use Planning By-law to temporarily use the property for a different

use rather than that of the approved zoning nor permanently change the use in order to

accommodate an activity that will blend with the existing land use character.


26

PART N: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION

Erf 493, Wilderness is located in Wilderness, outside the CBD of the town on the eastern side of the

town commonage and adjacent to Touw River. The Wilderness National Park is neighbour to the

east and to the south is the day visitor’s area located adjacent to the Touw River.

The proposal entails a temporary departure in order to accommodate a tea garden and plant

nursery on the property.

It should be noted that the evaluation of this application only coveres the temporary use of the

property as a tea garden and plant nursery as agreed upon by the department and the applicant.

The application entails use of containers to be harmoniously constructed to fit in with the character

of the area. The proposal will solely intensify mixed use activities in the area while at the same time

complementing the natural features around the subject property.

It is also noted that there are a number of objections against the proposed development but

approval of the application will not result to any impact the adjacent property owners as there

are no habitable/neighbouring spaces situated around the property.

The proposed development will support tourism and economic stabilisation of the area. Wilderness

is known for its restaurants, guest housing development and many other commercial activities that

support the growth of the tourism economy of the region.

CONCLUSION

Thus, on the balance of all considerations, the proposal to temporarily allow a restaurant and

plant nursery on Erf 493, Wilderness cannot be considered to be undesirable in terms of Section

65 of the Land-Use Planning By-law for George Municipality, 2015 and is therefore SUPPORTED.

PART O: RECOMMENDATION

That, notwithstanding the objections received, the application for Temporary Departure in terms

of Section 15(2)(c) of the Land Use Planning B-law for George Municipality, 2015 to allow for a tea

garden and plant nursery on Erf 493, Wilderness;

BE APPROVED in terms of Section 60 of said By-law for the following reasons:

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. The property is located in close proximity to an area that is demarcated for business

activities, where a diverse range of tourism related land uses should be promoted;

II. The proposal will not detract from the surrounding land use character and the use is

compatible with the natural environment;

III. The proposal will play a role in promoting tourism in Wilderness as well intensifying the

economy of the Village;

IV. The proposal will not have a negative impact on the adjacent neighbours’ amenity and

rights to privacy, sunlight and views;

V. Considering the above, the application is found to be consistent with the objectives of the

spatial planning policies for the area.

Subject to the following conditions imposed in terms of Sections 66 of the said By-law:


27

CONDITIONS OF THE DIRECTORATE: PLANNINGAND DEVELOPMENT

1. That in terms of the Land Use Planning By-law for the George Municipality, 2015 the

approval shall lapse after a period of five (5) years from the date thereof;

2. This approval shall be taken to cover the temporary departure applied for and shall not be

construed as to depart from any other Council requirements or legal provision;

3. That a site development plan for the temporary departure application indicating the

following be submitted to the satisfaction of the Directorate: Planning and Development

for approval prior to the submission of building plans:

a) An annexure in which the zoning of the land unit is indicated as well as any

restrictions with regard to floor areas, structures on site as well as the parking

requirement applicable to the land unit. This annexure shall also indicate the

proposed land use restriction for the planned development;

b) Erf boundaries and dimensions;

c) All servitudes applicable to the erf;

d) Building restriction areas;

e) Service connection points;

f) Contours at 1 (one) m intervals;

g) All existing land unit features such as trees, existing buildings, etc.;

h) All the development and features on adjoining land units;

i) Height and layout of all proposed buildings;

j) Functional open spaces, landscaping patterns and private open spaces;

k) Entrances to and from the land unit, internal roads and parking areas,

including for the disabled;

l) Elevation treatment of all buildings and structures;

m) Provision made for refuse removal;

n) Elevation, section diagrams or perspective drawings of the proposed land

unit layout;

o) Proposals regarding site boundaries (i.e. fences and boundary walls if any)

4. The application will only be regarded as implemented on approval of the site

development plan.

DIRECTORATE: CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES

5. Capital contributions are payable by the developer for each new equivalent erf (ee)

created, as per standard tariffs for George, applicable on transfer of a portion, or the

approval of building plans, or on application for a CPT, or as stipulated in a Services

Agreement between the George Municipality and the Developer. The total amount

payable will be determined by the Dept: CES, and will be subject to annual adjustment.

Contributions payable may be adjusted should the actual water usage exceed the

accepted normal daily usage based on the Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and

Design, based on a six month average use;

6. All civil services -internal, link and relocation of or upgrades to existing - are to be designed

by a registered consulting engineer in accordance with The Guidelines for Human

Settlement and Design and Council specifications. All drawings and plans are to be

submitted to the Dept: CES, or any other relevant authority,(hard copy and electronically)

for approval prior to any construction work taking place. All work is to be carried out under

the supervision of the consulting engineer who is to provide the relevant authority with a

certificate of completion, and as-built plans in electronic format. All costs will be for the


28

developer. No transfers will be approved before all the civil services have been

satisfactorily installed and as-builts submitted electronically as well as the surveyors plan;

7. Any, and all, costs directly related to the development remain the developers’

responsibility;

8. Any services from the development that must be accommodated across another erf must

be negotiated between the developer and the owner of the relevant erf. Any costs

resulting from the accommodation of such services or the incorporation of these services

into the network of another development are to be determined by the developer/owner

of the other erf; (Condition 7 applicable)

9. Any service from another relevant erf must be accommodated across the development

or incorporated into the services of the development. All negotiations will be between the

owner/developer of the relevant erf and the developer. Costs for the accommodation of

these services or the upgrade of the developments services to incorporate such services

are to be determined by the developers/owners concerned; (Condition 7 applicable)

10. Any existing municipal or private service damaged during the development will be

repaired at the developers cost and to the satisfaction of the George Municipality;

(Condition 7 applicable)

11. Servitudes must be registered for any pipeline not positioned within the normal building

lines. The applicant is to comply with the National Forests Act No 84 of 1998, should it be

required.

12. Provision for the removal of solid waste is to be addressed in conjunction with the Dept:

Environmental Services;

13. The developer is to adhere to the requirements of all relevant Acts, as well as all conditions

stipulated by any other authority whose approval was required and obtained for this

proposed development;

14. Transfers, building plan approvals and occupation certificates may be withheld if any sums

of money owing to the George Municipality are not paid in full, or if any services have not

been completed to the satisfaction of the Dept: CES, or any condition of any authority has

not been satisfactorily complied with.

15. Developer responsible to obtain the necessary approval / way leaves from third parties

which include, but not limited to the following: Telkom & Fibre optical cable;

16. If no municipal water services are available at present. Should a municipal network in future

be extended to this area, the owner will be compelled, at own cost, to connect to the

network. A capital contribution for water will then become payable as per standard tariff

for each equivalent erf applicable at the time of connection;

17. If there is no municipal sewer services are available at present. Should a municipal network

in future be extended to this area, the owner will be compelled, at own cost, to connect

to the network. A capital contribution for sewer will then become payable as per standard

tariff for each equivalent erf applicable at the time of connection;

18. A conservancy tank, or alternative approved sewer disposal method, must be installed at

the owner’s cost. The owner is to appoint a private contractor, at own expense, to service

the tank or alternative approved disposal methods;

19. The discharge of surface stormwater is to be addressed by the developer. Condition (7)

applies. All costs related is for the developer;

20. Internal parking requirements (ie within the development area), position of accesses,

provision for pedestrians and non-motorised transport, and other issues related to traffic

must be addressed and all measures indicated on plans and drawings submitted for

approval;

21. Adequate parking with a hardened surface must be provided on the premises of the


22. No private parking will be allowed in the road reserve;


29

23. The approval of the layout of the development and accesses is subject to the George

Roads Master Plan and approved by the Dept: Civil Engineering Services. A site

development plan is to be submitted to the Dept: CES, or any other relevant authority for

approval prior to any construction work taking place;

24. Permission for access onto municipal, provincial or national roads must be obtained from

the relevant authorities.

DIRECTORATE: ELECTROTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES





payable will be determined by the Dept: Electro Technical Services (ETS, and will be subject

to annual adjustment. Contributions payable may be adjusted should the actual

electricity connection be other than a conventional 60 Amp single phase per erf;

26. All electrical services -internal, link and relocation of or upgrades to the existing network -

are to be designed by a registered consulting engineer in accordance with Council

specifications. All drawings and plans are to be submitted to the Dept: ETS, (hard copy and

electronically) for approval prior to any construction work taking place. All work is to be

carried out under the supervision of the consulting engineer who is to provide the electrical

department with a certificate of completion, and as-built plans in electronic format. All

costs will be for the developer. No transfers will be approved before all the electrical

services have been satisfactorily installed and as-built submitted electronically;


responsibility;

28. Only one electrical connection permitted per registered erf.

PART P: ANNEXURES

Annexure A – Applicant’s Motivation report

Annexure B – Title Deed

Annexure C - Site Development Plan

Annexure D – Surveyor General Diagram

Annexure E – Objections/Comments

Annexure F – Pre-Application Consultation Minutes

Annexure G – Evaluation Checklist


30

Attachment : Annexures for Erf 493, Wilderness

Annexure_Erf493Wi

lderness.pdf


31

6.2. Removal of Restrictions, Rezoning and Departure : Erf 157, Sands Road, Wilderness (F Vava)


Reference number

N/A

Application

submission

date

20/02/2018

Date report

finalized

September 2018


First name(s) Fakazile

Surname Vava

Job title Town Planner

SACPLAN

registration number C/8792/2018

Directorate/Depart

ment Planning and Development

Contact details 044 801 9303 or [email protected]

PARTB: APPLICANT DETAILS


Surname de Bruyn

Company name Marlize de Bruyn and Associates Consulting Town and Regional Planners

SACPLAN

registration number A/1477/2011

Is the applicant authorized to

submit this application? Y N

Registered owner(s) Tradala (PTY) LTD

PART C: PROPERTY DETAILS Property description

(in accordance with

Title Deed) Erf 157, Wilderness

Physical address Sands Road, Wilderness Town/City Wilderness

Current zoning Single Residential Zone I Extent(m2

/ha) 743

Are there existing

buildings on the property? Y N

Applicable Zoning

Scheme George Integrated Zoning Scheme By-law, 2017

Current Land Use Vacant Title Deed number

& date

T14940/201

7 Any restrictive title

conditions

applicable?

Y N If Yes, list condition

number(s) Par. C of the Title Deed No. T14940/2017

Any third party

conditions

applicable?

Y N If Yes, specify

Any unauthorised

land use/building

work?

Y N If Yes, explain


32

PART D: PRE-APPLICATON CONSULTATION(ATTACH MINUTES)

Has pre-application consultation been

undertaken? Y N If yes, attach the minutes of the consultation.

Reference Number Erf 157, Wilderness Official’s name M. Calitz


b. Rezoning X b. Permanent

departure X

t. Temporary

departure u. Subdivision

v. Consolidation

w. Amendment,

suspension or

deletion of

restrictive conditions

X

x. Permissions required

in terms of the

zoning scheme

y. Amendment,

deletion or

additional

conditions in

respect of existing

approval

z. Extension of

validity period

aa. Approval of

an overlay zone

bb. Phasing,

amendment or

cancellation of

subdivision plan

cc. Permissions required

in terms of

conditions of

approval

dd. Determination

of zoning

ee. Closure of

public place ff. Consent use gg. Occasional use

hh. Establishment of

a Home Owners

Association

ii. Rectify Beach of

Home Owners

Association

jj. Reconstruct building

of non-conforming

use

Other

PART F: APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

1) Removal in terms of Section 15(2)(f) of the Land Use Planning By Law for George Municipality,

2015 of the restrictive title deed conditions (par. C) from Title Deed No.T14940/2017 of Erf 157,

Wilderness.

2) Rezoning in terms of Section 15(2)(a) of the Land Use Planning By-law for George Municipality,

2015 of Erf 157 Wilderness from Single Residential Zone I to General Residential Zone V for a 7

guestroom guest lodge;

3) Departure in terms of Section 15(2)(b) of the Land Use Planning By-law for George

Municipality, 2015 to relax the following building lines:

i. Southern street building line from 5,0m to 4,5m for an uncovered balcony on first floor

level and 0,0m for an uncovered deck on ground floor;

ii. Western and eastern side building lines from 4,5m to 2,0m for the guest lodge and 0,0m

for an uncovered deck on the ground floor level.

iii. To regard a tandem parking bay as two parking bays

iv. To use the width of the northern street boundary as a motor vehicle carriageway

crossing;


33

PART G: BACKGROUND

Erf Wilderness is registered in the name of Tradala (Pty) Ltd and no bond is registered for the

property but a restrictive title deed condition was found and dealt with in the application.

The property covers an extent of 743m² and registered both in the title deed and the SG diagram.

Erf 157 Wilderness is one of the last vacant residential properties in Sands Road of which the

dwelling was demolished between 2006 and 2011. The property is located on the southern side of

Sand Road close to the eastern end of this road. The unconstructed Beach Road forms the

southern boundary of the property where the Wilderness Beach is located.

Sand Road is known as a street where many guest house accommodation establishments are

found. It provides easy access to the beach and is within easy walking distance with the Wilderness

Village where most restaurants and shops are found.

The application was originally submitted on the 20th of February 2018.

PART H: SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS MOTIVATION

Introduction

The owner of Erf 157, Wilderness namely, Tradala (PTY) LTD, appointed Marlize de Bruyn Planning to

submit and facilitate the required land use application for the establishment of a guest lodge,

departure and removal of restrictive conditions of title on the property.

Locality

Erf 157 Wilderness is one of the last vacant residential properties in Sands Road of which the

dwelling was demolished between 2006 and 2011. The property is located on the southern side of

Sand Road close to the eastern end of this road. The unconstructed Beach Road forms the

southern boundary of the property where the Wilderness Beach is located.

Land Use Proposal

A small swimming pool is proposed for the southern side of the dwelling. It is further proposed that

the space outside the guest lodge on the southern side of the structure and around the swimming

pool be covered with a deck instead of grass or paving, still allowing water to go through to the

sand below.

Two guest bedrooms will be provided on the ground floor with five guest rooms above and also

the manager’s rooms. A lift will also be included to improve accessibility of the guest lodge. The

double storey structure will be approximately 7.0m in height and therefore below 8.5m maximum

height allowed by the GIZS By-law. This considers the neighbours behind the property on the

northern side of Sands Road.

The WLH LSDF states that guest accommodation establishments are all compatible uses on single

residential properties. It makes it possible to accommodate more tourists in the area. It is further

stated that such establishments should not detract in any way the amenity and character of the

residential areas of Wilderness. Throughout this motivation report, it is shown that this is not a

negative proposal for Erf 157, Wilderness and its surrounds.


34

The WLH LSDF further states that the development parameters should not be relaxed for guest

house accommodation establishments but the section below motivates this application.

The guest lodge will be 7.48m from the southern boundary (unconstructed Beach Road) on ground

floor level with an open deck up to the boundary and around the proposed swimming pool. On

the first floor level structure will be 6.25m from the southern boundary with an uncovered balcony

4.5m from this this southern boundary. The structure therefore adheres to the southern street

building line except for the uncovered balcony. This balcony will break the front elevation and

provide shade for the ground floor. The southern boundary is further not perceived to be street

boundary. If Beach Road did not exist, this boundary line would have been the rear boundary

which is indicated to have a 4.5m building line. A relaxation is necessary in this regard.

The proposed swimming pool will be 1m from the street building line in accordance with the

George IZS By-law. The swimming pool will be surrounded by an open deck of not more than

500mm in height from the natural level of the ground.

The structure is proposed to be 2.0m from both the eastern and western side building lines.

According to the GIZS the structure should be 4.5 from each side boundary. The width of the

property is ±23.4m. Adhering from the side building lines with leave a total open space of 9.0m

leaving the structure only ±14.4m wide centrally on the property.

The property provides 10 parking bays. Two parking bays being the double garage and 8 parking

bays in from of the house. One parking bay is provided in front of the garages proposed for Erf 157,

Wilderness. Considering the case a tandem bay is provided. Limiting of vehicle access to one as

per the zoning scheme is regarded as an issue in the area as people park on the street as well,

hence a departure to allow for a wider access/parking is applied for (See Site Plan).

The application also includes removal of a restrictive title deed condition. The condition restricts

any form of business on the property and is however very much irrelevant with the times.

The character of this suburb will not change. It is a popular destination for the accommodation of

tourists. Presence for the tourism industry of Wilderness will be strengthened. The proposed structure

is planned to fit in with the surrounding area and will not affect the surrounding properties in any

manner.

The municipal engineering services required for the proposed guest lodge be addressed as the

municipality requires. The required capital contributions will be paid, and service charges will be

adjusted accordingly.

PART I: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Methods of advertising Date published Closing date for objections

Press Y N N/A 14 May 2018 23 July 2018

Gazette Y N N/A

Notices Y N N/A 14 May 2018 23 July 2018

WebSite Y N N/A

Ward councillor Y N N/A

On-site display Y N N/A

Community

organisation(s) Y N N/A

Public meeting Y N N/A

Third parties Y N N/A


35

O

th

er Y N

If yes,

specify

Neighbour’s Consent

Letters and

Departmental

Comments

Total valid

objections 2

Total invalid objections

and petitions 0

Valid petition(s) Y N If yes, number of signatures

Community

organisation(s)

response Y N N/A Ward councillor response Y N

N/

A

Total letters of

support

Was the minimum requirement for public participation undertaken in accordance with relevant Bylaw on

Municipal Land Use Planning and any applicable Council Policy Y N

PART J: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION


I. The WRRA urges the Municipality to proactively solicit comments from all nearby

neighbours on both sides of the road.

II. The WRRA does not agree that an east and west east and west side building lines of 4.5

metres will be detrimental to the character of Sands Road. On the contrary, the more open

space left unbuilt on a property with an upscale guest house is an opportunity to make it

uniquely attractive and in fact would be a positive attribute and will contribute to, not

detract from, the character of the area.

III. The WRRA states that the Municipality must think carefully about the proposed tandem

parking bay in which a garage will be blocked by a parked car. The argument that this is

a ‘general approach’ with parking provided ‘in a similar manner in recent months’ is not

at all a valid rationale.


I. WALEAF states that they have no objection to the rezoning from Single Residential Zone 1

to General Residential Zone V but feel that the number of guest rooms for which the

applicant is applying is excessive and should be refused or reduced. They state that the 7

guest rooms as well as a manager’s suite feels to them more like a boutique hotel than a

guest house.

II. WALEAF states that a precedent has already been set by the municipality regarding the

size of a property in Sands Road and the number of guest rooms. An application for a

guesthouse on erf 123 on the opposite side of Sands Road, measuring 788m² (larger than

this erf), with 6 guest rooms and one self-catering unit was refused on 2017-10-26 by the

Appeal Authority. Therefore, this application has to be refused, based upon this prior

decision. If the applicant was to apply for a guest house with fewer rooms we would

reconsider our objection.

III. WALEAF notes that the applicant has not mentioned whether or not there is a wall around

this proposed deck. Details of any such wall need to be provided.

IV. WALEAF has no objection to the departures requested except for the relaxation of the

southern street building line from 5m to 0m for an uncovered deck on the ground floor

level. The reasons for the objection for a relaxation to 0m for an uncovered deck are as

follows:


36

• the primary dune, which is covered in indigenous vegetation should be preserved, and

not removed for the erection of a wooden deck, and,

• secondly, nothing should be constructed within the 1 in 20-year erosion risk line.

v. WALEAF has not objection regarding the removal of the clause referring to “residential

purposes only”, and do object to the removal of “shall be erected in line so as not to

obstruct the view of the neighbouring residents and no owner shall be permitted to erect

any building that may be a nuisance to his neighbouring residents.”

vi. Lastly WALEAF quotes section from the GSDF and the WLH LSDF as they always do. What

is relevant from a planning perspective in the GSDF and the WLH LSDF were addressed in

the motivation report.

PART K: SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REPLY TO OBJECTIONS

The response to the comments received can be summarised as follows:


I. Comments from 6 neighbours, both sides of the road were requested. As stated in

paragraph 2 above, no comment was received.

II. With our application the relaxation of the side building lines from 4.5m to 2.0m were

requested. The latter is the side building lines applicable to a single residential property

which applies to the property at present prior to rezoning. As stated in our motivation report

(p. 9) ‘the width of the property is ±23.4m. Adhering to the side building line will leave a total

open space of 9.0m leaving a structure only ±14.4m wide centrally on the property. This will

not conform to other properties in Sands Road. When travelling down Sands Road it seems

that most properties are 2.0m from the side boundary or closer. A 4.5m side building line on

the eastern and western side of Erf 157, Wilderness will be detrimental to the character of

Sands Road and therefore also the experience of the street scape. It will not be an

appropriately scaled structure when comparing it to other structures in Sands Road’.

III. If the side building lines for this property is 4.5m, it will be the only property in Sands Road with

such wide side building lines. The structure for the property will also be the smallest. This can

only be detrimental to the character and street scape of Sands Road.

IV. The garage will be used by the owner and manager. To keep one garage open is standard

and allowable without a detrimental impact on others. It can only inconvenience the owner

and/or the manager. This should not be a concern for the WRRA or the Municipality.

V. As stated in our motivation report, the proposed parking takes vehicles off the road surface

and off the side walk. Ensuring an open road and side walk is for the convenience and

safety of the road and side walk users. Wherever there is a boundary wall or other form of

obstruction along the street boundary of a property in Sands Road, vehicles park over the

side walk. This narrows the road surface and closes the side walk.


I. Up to 6 guest bedrooms is a consent use application with the zoning of the property

remaining Single Residential Zone I. More than 6 guest bedrooms necessitates a rezoning

to General Residential Zone V. Therefore, we cannot provide comment on a statement

that is in conflict with the GIZS.

We take note that WALEAF ‘feels’ that this application is for a boutique hotel and not a

guest house. Our application is based on the applicable by-laws and spatial plans. The


37

GIZS makes provision for 4 types of guest accommodation establishments (except for Resort

Zone) namely bed & breakfast establishments, guest houses, guest lodges and hotels. In

practice the tourism industry has more names for guest accommodation establishments

e.g. also a boutique hotel. In town planning we are limited to the terminology our legislation

provides.

II. We do not have access to the reasons for the above decision but from our understanding,

the application for the mentioned property was refused due to one parking bay that was

not big enough and partly in the road reserve of Station Street (used as a public walkway).

It should also be noted that every land use application must be considered on its own merit.

No two properties, not even in Sands Road, is the same.

III. Every property owner has the right to enclose their property. Due to the difference in height

between the proposed deck and the dune below, a boundary wall be limited to the height

required for safety as required by the National Building Regulations (1977). Details of such

a wall/fence will be provided at building plan stage.

IV. The primary dune will not be removed. The main aim of the survey that was done (copy

attached) of the property was to show the contours of this last ±7.0m of the property from

the existing fence before the unconstructed Beach Road is reached. On the western

boundary over a distance of 7.0m the property falls from 9.4m to 8.0m (slope = 1:5). On the

eastern boundary over the same distance, the property falls from 9.5m to 6.0m (slope =

1:2).

The extract below from the attached survey shows to the 4.0m building line from the

southern street building line for the current zoning of the property. Then the 5.0m building

line applicable to General Residential Zone V is indicated with the requested 4.5m building.

As indicated in the motivation report, a swimming pool is proposed 1.0m from the southern

street boundary. This is in accordance with the GIZS.

The proposed 4.5m building line falls between the 9.0m and 8.5m contour. From this point

the proposed deck will be level and above the dune below. The swimming pool will ‘link’

the dune and the deck above. The dune will remain as is here and not be levelled and

grassed as done with other erven in Sands Road e.g. Erven 155, 156, 161 and 1980 – see

image below. The dune underneath the deck will continue to exist. The deck will rest only

on the pool and the necessary supports.

If a building plan was submitted only for a single residential dwelling it would have been

constructed 2.0m from the side boundaries and 4.0m from the northern and southern street

boundaries with a swimming pool as indicated. The deck would still have required a

building line relaxation, but the owners could have opted for grass around the pool. They

could even have levelled the area on this side of the property, just enough not to require

any approvals.

The owners wish to protect the dune in a more responsible manner than other property

owners in the area.

The survey of the property with an extract on the previous page includes the 1:20 year risk

line. The image below is from GoogleEarth with the 1:20 year risk line also indicated. The


38

owners are aware of this line and therefore also opted to construct the deck over the dune

in a more responsible manner than what happened on neighbouring properties.

V. This point of objection is not motivated and is therefore disregarded.

As stated in our motivation report the double storey structure will be approximately 7.0m in

height and therefore below the 8.5m maximum height allowed by the GIZS By-law. This

considers the neighbours behind the property on the northern side of Sands Road. If just a

single residential dwelling was constructed only the development parameters for dwelling

house would have been applicable with limited consideration for the neighbours.

Lastly WALEAF quotes section from the GSDF and the WLH LSDF as they always do. What is

relevant from a planning perspective in the GSDF and the WLH LSDF were addressed in the

motivation report.

Concluding

The concerns raised during the public participation process is addressed in the motivation

report and the paragraphs above.

Parking and also access to the property are motivated in Section 5.7 of the motivation

report. The proposal takes vehicles off the sidewalks and road surface. Especially the road

surface remains open from vehicles partly parked on the road surface.

If a boundary wall is to be constructed along the Sands Road boundary of Erf 157,

Wilderness it will vehicles will park on the side walk and partly on the road surface, this can

be seen when visiting Sands Road and are also visible on the aerial photography.

PART L: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS AND/OR ORGANS OF STATE

COMMENTS Name of

Department Date Summary of comments Recommendation

N/A

PART M: MUNICIPAL PLANNING EVALUATION ( REFER TO RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GUIDELINE)

Is the proposal consistent with the principles referred to in chapter 2 of SPLUMA? (can be elaborated further

below) Y N

Is the proposal consistent with the principles referred to in chapter VI of LUPA? (can be elaborated further

below) Y N

Application history

The application was submitted in February 2018. There is no other application on the subject

property.

(In)consistency with the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act 16 of 2013)

as we as the principles referred to in Chapter Vl of the Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of

2014) (Section 65 of the By-law)

The consistency of the application with the principles of SPLUMA and LUPA as read with Section 65

of the By-law was evaluated as follows:


39

No

Evaluation checklist (s. 65) Yes No N/A

1(a) Does the application submitted comply with the provisions of this bylaw? x

Has the motivation submitted been considered? x

1(b) Were the correct procedures followed in processing the application? (see land use

application process checklist) x

Was a condonation required and granted with regards to the process followed? (see

land use application process checklist) x

1(c) Have the desirability guidelines as issued by the provincial minister to the utilise land for

the proposed land uses been considered? x

1(d) Have the comments received from the respondents, any organs of state and the

provincial minister been considered? (s. 45 of LUPA) x

1(e) Have the comments received from the applicant been considered? x

1(f) Have investigations carried out in terms of other laws and that are relevant to the

application being considered? x

1(g) Was the application assessed by a registered town planner? (see land use application

process checklist) x

1(h) Has the impact of the proposed development on municipal engineering services been

considered? x

1(i) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the IDP of the municipality? x

Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the municipal SDF? x

1(j) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the IDP of the district

municipality including its SDF? x

1(k) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the structure plan

applicable to the area? x

1(l) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the local SDF applicable to

the area? x

1(m

)

Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with any other municipal policy

or by-law applicable to the proposed land use? x

1(n) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the provincial SDF? x

1(o) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the regional SDF (SPLUMA)

or provincial regional SDF (LUPA)? x

1(p) Is the application in line, consistent and/or compatible with the applicable guidelines,

standards, principles, norms or criteria set by national and/or provincial government? x

1(r) Is the application in line the consistent and/or compatible with the following principles

as contained in section 7 of SPLUMA / 59 of LUPA:

1. The redress spatial and other development imbalances of the past through

improved access to and use of land? x

2.

Address the inclusion of persons and areas previously excluded in the past,

specifically informal settlements and areas characterised by wide-spread

poverty and deprivation?

x

3. Enable the redress of access to land by disadvantaged communities and

persons? x

4. Does the application support access to / facilitate the obtaining of security of

tenure and/or incremental informal settlement upgrading? x

5. Has the potential impact of the development proposal on the value of the

affected land /properties been considered? x

6. The impact of the application on the existing rights of the surrounding owners

been recognised? x


40

7. Does the application promote spatially compact, resource frugal development

form? x

8.

Can the development be accommodated within the existing fiscal (budget),

institutional and administrative means of the municipality? (e.g. Infrastructure

upgrades required – when, budgeted for, etc)

x

9. Has the protection of prime, unique and/or high potential agricultural land been

considered? x

10. Is the application consistent with the land use measures applicable to /

contained in environmental management instruments? x

11. Does the application promote and stimulate the equitable and effective

functioning of land markets? x

12. Have all current and future costs to all parties for the provision of infrastructure

and social services been considered? x

13.

Does the application promote development that is sustainable, discourages

urban sprawl, encourages residential densification and promotes a more

compact urban form?

x

14. Will the development result in / promote the establishment of viable

communities? x

15. Does the development strive to ensure that the basic needs of all the citizens are

met in an affordable way? x

16. Will the development sustain and/or protect natural habitats, ecological

corridors and areas of high bio-diversity importance? x

17. Will the development sustain and/or protect provincial heritage and tourism

resources? x

18.

Will the development sustain and/or protect areas unsuitable for development

including floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, areas with a high water table, and

landscapes and features of cultural significance?

x

19. Will the development sustain and/or protect the economic potential of the

relevant area or region? x

20. Has provision been made in the development to mitigate against the potential

impacts of climate change? x

21.

Does the development include measures to reduce consumption / conserve

water and energy resources? (renewable energy, energy saving, water saving,

etc)

x

22. Does the development take into account sea-level rise, flooding, storm surges,

fire hazards? x

23. Does the development take into account geological formations and

topographical (soil and slope) conditions? x

24. Will the development discourage illegal land occupation – w.r.t. Informal land

development practices? x

25.

Does the development benefit the long term social, economic and

environmental priorities for the area (sustained job opportunities, sustained

income, integrated open space network, etc) over any short term benefits (job

creation during construction, short term economic injection, etc)?

x

26. Does the development contribute towards the optimal use of existing resources,

infrastructure, agriculture, land, minerals and/or facilities? x

27. Does the development contribute towards social, economic, institutional and

physical integration aspects of land use planning? x

28. Promotes and supports the inter-relationships between rural and urban

development? x

29. Does the development promote the availability of employment and residential

opportunities in close proximity to each other or the integration thereof? x

30. Does the development promote the establishment of a diverse combination of

land uses? x

31. Does the development contribute towards the correction of distorted spatial

patterns of settlements within the town/city/village? x


41

32. Does the development contribute towards and /or promote the creation of a

quality and functional open spatial environment? x

33.

Will the development allow the area or town to be more spatially resilient that

can ensure a sustainable livelihood for the affected community most likely to be

affected by economic and environmental shocks?

x

1(s)

Is the application in line with the applicable provisions contained in the applicable

zoning scheme regulations (by-law)? (e.g. Definitions, land use description and

development parameters)

x

Comments:

The proposed for the rezoning, departure and removal of restrictive title deed conditions in order

to accommodate the proposed guest-lodge on the property is consistent with the development

principles and norms and standards of SPLUMA as it fits in with the existing residential character.

The proposal is consistent with the principles referred in LUPA, considering the existing surrounding

land uses.

(In)consistency with the IDP/Various levels of SDF’s/Applicable policies

The application is consistent with the objectives of the SDF. The proposal is also in line with the

character of the area as Wilderness is a tourist destination and this application supports this

sector as well as the economic upliftment of the area. It is noted that the LSDF stated that no

departures should be considered for a guest house. The LSDF was however written at a time

when the building lines and development parameters for a dwelling house applied. The

requested building line relaxations are consistent with previous zoning scheme and thus the

proposal is deem to be consistent with the LSDF.

(In)consistency with guidelines prepared by the Provincial Minister

N/A

Outcomes of investigations/applications i.t.o other laws

N/A

Existing and proposed zoning comparisons and considerations

The property falls within an area that is predominantly residential in nature. Sands road is known for

a number of properties used for guest accommodation; this approval will be one of a few

properties that have been rezoned to General Residential V.

The proposal to accommodate a guest lodge is compatible with the residential setting (Single

Residential Zone I). Therefore there will be no negative impact on the existing Single Residential

Zone properties in area nor will it create precedent.

Notwithstanding, the confined allowance of row parking along the street will eventually impact on

the ability of the general public to utilise and park in the street to access the beach or even visit

friends.


42

The need and desirability of the proposal

The need and desirability of the proposal has been considered in terms of the following factors:

No

Yes No N/A

1 Will the natural environment and/or open space systems be negatively affected? X

2 Will application result in trees/indigenous vegetation being removed on site or in the

road reserve? X

3 Does the application have any negative impact on heritage resources? X

4 Will the character of the surrounding area be negatively affected? X

5 Will the architectural character of the streetscape be negatively affected? X

6 Will there be any negative impact on vehicle traffic and pedestrian safety? X

7 Will there be a negative impact on traffic movement? X

8 Will there be a negative impact on vehicle sight distances? X

9 Is there adequate on-site parking / loading facilities provided? X

10 Is there adequate vehicle access/ egress to the property? X

11 Will the neighbour’s amenity to sunlight be negatively affected? X

12 Will the application result in overshadowing onto neighbours properties? X

13 Will the neighbours’ amenity to privacy / enjoyment of their property/views be

negatively affected? X

14 Will the proposal have a negative impact on scenic vistas or intrude on the skyline X

15 Will the intended land use have a negative impact on adjoining uses? X

16 Will the land use pose a potential danger to life or property in terms of fire risks, air

pollution or smells or compromise a person’s right to a safe and secure environment? X

17 Will there be a negative impact on property values? X

18 Will the application result in a nuisance, noise nuisance, and disturbance to

neighbours? X

19 Will adequate open space and/or recreational space be provided (for residential

developments)? X

20 Will approval of the application set a precedent? X

Comment:

The proposed guest lodge activity will not result in any negative impact on the adjoining properties

nor will it introduce a dissimilar land use activity within the vicinity. However one must consider

cumulative impact of allowing row parking along the street as this will eventually sterilise the street

environment and make it impossible for the public to access the beach thus establishing an

exclusive environment.


43

Assessment of objections/comments

The proposed development on Erf 157, Wilderness entails an establishment of a guest lodge on the

property in accordance with the George Integrated Zoning Scheme By-law, 2017. Included in the

application are also building line relaxations as well as a removal of restrictive conditions of title.

As detailed in the report, the application is subjected to two objections received from the

participating role players based on the following grounds:

i. The building line relaxations should not be allowed on the property as this would leave

minimum recreational space;

ii. With regards to parking (layout 1);

iii. The number of guestrooms is excessive;

iv. Consideration of other guest houses in the area;

v. The relaxation of building lines will have an impact on the dune system;

In consideration of the above, all land zoned for residential purposes is regulated in terms of the

GIZS By-law, 2017 and the National Building Regulations, 1977 which means that a property owner

needs to abide with the applicable building lines and still comply in terms of fire regulations. Hence

the relaxation of building lines is not seen as an issue as far as the safety and impact on the

neighbouring properties.

The relaxation of the southern street building line from 5.0m to 4.5m cannot any of the neighbours.

At present, 4m street building lines apply to this property. The relaxation is required as the proposed

zoning applies a 5.0m street building line. Thus if the application is approved, no views will be lost.

The objections received cannot be argued on the basis that some guest lodges were not

approved in the surrounding area.

With regards to parking, the applicant has identified that they will provide a single entrance and

basement parking bays. The objections received in this regard can be disregarded as there will be

no longer a tandem parking required. In the applicant’s reply, a 1:20 year erosion line is indicated

and further motivated that the construction of a deck will in actual fact protect the natural setting

of the rear of the property rather than using a concrete floor or any other form of hard surface.

The LSDF supports tourism and the establishment of guest accommodation in the area as this

contributes to the economy of Wilderness. It is therefore a vital action to consider the proposal in

support of the goals of the spatial planning policies for the area.

PART N: ADDITIONAL PLANNING EVALUATION FOR REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS

Financial or other value of the rights affected

The value of the title deed condition which is being removed is very much irrelevant considering

the current spatial planning frameworks and the applicable zoning scheme regulations for the

area. The property can be used to generate an income for as long as that activity (land-use) does

not impact on the existing residential character.

Benefits to the holder of such rights in terms of the restrictive condition


44

Currently, the property is zoned as Single Residential Zone I in terms of the George IZS By-law, 2017

and is currently vacant which means that restrictive title deed condition does not benefit but rather

limit benefits to the landowner.

Personal benefits which will accrue to the applicant

By removing the restrictive title deed condition in place, the owner will be able to optimize the

property to its full potential by acquiring additional land use rights.

Social benefit of the restriction remaining in place

There will be no benefit acquired when the restriction remains in place.

Social benefit of the proposal and whether the application will completely remove all rights

enjoyed by the beneficiary or only some of those rights

It is necessary to remove the restrictive title deed condition in order for the property to be used as

a guest lodge. The rezoning of the property from Single Residential Zone I to General Residential

Zone V to accommodate the guest lodge is a practicable action as this will improve on the tourism

of the area and is supported in terms of the LSDF. The proposal is necessary to assist in the

achievement of the objectives aforementioned document.


45

PART O: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION

The said application entails the establishment of a guest lodge on the Erf 157, Wilderness. The use

is not an uncommon activity in the area and it supports tourism for the Greater Wilderness area

while improving the local economy.

Erf 157, Wilderness is demarcated for residential purposes in terms of the WLH LSDF. The residential

use of the property will still take place but on a larger scale as guests will check in from time to

time. This land use application is consistent with the proposals and/or guidelines indicated in the

spatial planning policy for the area. All other properties and guest accommodation

establishments in the area share the same character.

It should be noted that the applicant will no longer provide parking on the front section of the

property, but basement parking will be provided in terms of the George Integrated Zoning Scheme

By-law, 2017.

This application for rezoning to allow the property to be used as a guest lodge is supported in terms

of the applicable spatial plan and it is not in conflict with any planning documents. It will enhance

the economy and tourism for the area.

The removal of the title deed restrictive condition to allow for the property to be used optimally by

the landowner will not result in any change to the land use character of the area.

CONCLUSION

This land use application is not in conflict with any relevant spatial plan applicable to Erf 157,

Wilderness. The trend of mixed-use activities (ranging from residential to guest lodge

establishments) is nothing new within the street itself, hence the proposal is seen to fit in with the

surrounding neighbourhood. The proposal is suitably located and the form and scale of such

development is seen as desirable in the area and therefore does not detract from the surrounding

residential character of the area or on neighbours rights or amenities.

Thus on the balance of all considerations the proposal cannot be considered to be undesirable

in terms of Section 65 of the Land-Use Planning By-law for George Municipality, 2015 and is

therefore SUPPORTED.

PART P: RECOMMENDATION

a) That it be acknowledged that the application for Departure in terms of Section 15(2)(b) of the

Land Use Planning By-law for George Municipality, 2015 for the following has been withdrawn

by the applicant:

i) To regard a tandem parking bay as two parking bays

ii) To use the width of the northern street boundary as a motor vehicle carriageway

crossing.

b) That, notwithstanding the objections received, the following applications applicable to Erf 157,

Wilderness:


46

1) Removal in terms of Section 15(2)(f) of the Land Use Planning By Law for George Municipality,

2015 of the restrictive title deed conditions (par. C) from Title Deed No.T14940/2017 of Erf 157,

Wilderness

2) Rezoning in terms of Section 15(2)(a) of the Land Use Planning By-law for George Municipality,

2015 of Erf 157 Wilderness from Single Residential Zone I to General Residential Zone V;

3) Departure in terms of Section 15(2)(b) of the Land Use Planning By-law for George

Municipality, 2015 to relax the following building lines:

I. Southern street building line from 5,0m to 4,5m for an uncovered balcony on first floor level

and 0,0m for an uncovered deck on ground floor;

II. Western and eastern side building lines from 4,5m to 2,0m for the guest lodge and 0,0m for

an uncovered deck on the ground floor level;

BE APPROVED in terms of Section 60 of said By-law for the following reasons:

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. The proposal is compatible and will not detract from the surrounding land use character

and the use is compatible with the existing character;

II. The proposal will play a role towards the advancement of the tourism of Wilderness as well

intensifying the economy of the area;

III. The proposal will not have a negative impact on the adjacent neighbours’ amenity and

rights to privacy, sunlight and views;

IV. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the George SDF and compatible with the

proposals contained in the local SDF as intended by the context in which it was written.

Subject to the following conditions imposed in terms of Sections 66 of the said By-law:

CONDITIONS OF THE DIRECTORATE: PLANNINGAND DEVELOPMENT

1. That in terms of the Land Use Planning By-law for the George Municipality. 2015, the

approval shall lapse if not acted upon within a period of five (5) years from the date

thereof;

2. This approval shall be taken to cover the rezoning, departure and ROR applied for and

shall not be construed as to depart from any other Council requirements or legal provision;

3. That a site development plan for the rezoning departure application indicating the

following be submitted to the satisfaction of the Directorate: Planning and Development

for approval prior to the submission of building plans:

a) An annexure in which the zoning of the land unit is indicated as well as any restrictions

with regard to floor areas, structures on site as well as the parking requirement

applicable to the land unit. This annexure shall also indicate the proposed land use

restriction for the planned development;

b) Erf boundaries and dimensions;

c) All servitudes applicable to the erf;

d) Building restriction areas;

e) Service connection points;

f) Contours at 1 (one) m intervals;


47

g) All existing land unit features such as trees, existing buildings, etc.;

h) All the development and features on adjoining land units;

i) Height and layout of all proposed buildings;

j) Functional open spaces, landscaping patterns and private open spaces;

k) Entrances to and from the land unit, internal roads and parking areas, including for the

disabled;

l) Elevation treatment of all buildings and structures;

m) Provision made for refuse removal;

n) Elevation, section diagrams or perspective drawings of the proposed land unit layout;

o) Proposals regarding site boundaries (i.e. fences and boundary walls if any)

4. A building plan be submitted for approval in accordance with the National Building

Regulations (NBR) after approval of the site development plan;

5. The application will only be regarded as implemented on commencement of works as per

the approved plans.

DIRECTORATE: CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES





payable will be determined by the Dept: CES, and will be subject to annual adjustment.

Contributions payable may be adjusted should the actual water usage exceed the

accepted normal daily usage based on the Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and

Design, based on a six month average use;

7. All civil services -internal, link and relocation of or upgrades to existing - are to be designed

by a registered consulting engineer in accordance with The Guidelines for Human

Settlement and Design and Council specifications. All drawings and plans are to be

submitted to the Dept: CES, or any other relevant authority,(hard copy and electronically)

for approval prior to any construction work taking place. All work is to be carried out under

the supervision of the consulting engineer who is to provide the relevant authority with a

certificate of completion, and as-built plans in electronic format. All costs will be for the

developer. No transfers will be approved before all the civil services have been

satisfactorily installed and as-builts submitted electronically as well as the surveyors plan;


responsibility;

9. Any services from the development that must be accommodated across another erf must

be negotiated between the developer and the owner of the relevant erf. Any costs

resulting from the accommodation of such services or the incorporation of these services

into the network of another development are to be determined by the developer/owner

of the other erf; (Condition 7 applicable);

10. Any service from another relevant erf must be accommodated across the development

or incorporated into the services of the development. All negotiations will be between the

owner/developer of the relevant erf and the developer. Costs for the accommodation of

these services or the upgrade of the developments services to incorporate such services

are to be determined by the developers/owners concerned; (Condition 7 applicable)

11. Any existing municipal or private service damaged during the development will be

repaired at the developers cost and to the satisfaction of the George Municipality;

(Condition 7 applicable)


48

12. Servitudes must be registered for any pipeline not positioned within the normal building

lines. The applicant is to comply with the National Forests Act No 84 of 1998, should it be

required.

13. Provision for the removal of solid waste is to be addressed in conjunction with the Dept:

Environmental Services;

14. The developer is to adhere to the requirements of all relevant Acts, as well as all conditions

stipulated by any other authority whose approval was required and obtained for this


15. Transfers, building plan approvals and occupation certificates may be withheld if any sums

of money owing to the George Municipality are not paid in full, or if any services have not

been completed to the satisfaction of the Dept: CES, or any condition of any authority has

not been satisfactorily complied with.

16. Developer responsible to obtain the necessary approval / way leaves from third parties

which include, but not limited to the following: Telkom & Fibre optical cable;

17. If no municipal water services are available at present. Should a municipal network in future


network. A capital contribution for water will then become payable as per standard tariff


18. No municipal sewer services are available at present. Should a municipal network in future


network. A capital contribution for sewer will then become payable as per standard tariff


19. A conservancy tank, or alternative approved sewer disposal method, must be installed at

the owner’s cost. The owner is to appoint a private contractor, at own expense, to service

the tank or alternative approved disposal methods;

20. The discharge of surface stormwater is to be addressed by the developer. Condition (7)

applies. All costs related is for the developer;

21. Internal parking requirements (ie within the development area) , position of accesses,

provision for pedestrians and non-motorised transport, and other issues related to traffic

must be addressed and all measures indicated on plans and drawings submitted for

approval;

22. Adequate parking with a hardened surface must be provided on the premises of the


23. No private parking will be allowed in the road reserve;

24. The approval of the layout of the development and accesses is subject to the George

Roads Master Plan and approved by the Dept: Civil Engineering Services. A site

development plan is to be submitted to the Dept: CES, or any other relevant authority for

approval prior to any construction work taking place;

25. Permission for access onto municipal, provincial or national roads must be obtained from

the relevant authorities.

DIRECTORATE: ELECTROTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES





payable will be determined by the Dept: Electro Technical Services (ETS), and will be

subject to annual adjustment. Contributions payable may be adjusted should the actual

electricity connection be other than a conventional 60 Amp single phase per erf;

27. All electrical services -internal, link and relocation of or upgrades to the existing network -

are to be designed by a registered consulting engineer in accordance with Council


49

Attachment : Annexures for Erf 157, Wilderness

Annexures_Erf 157

Wilderness.pdf

specifications. All drawings and plans are to be submitted to the Dept: ETS, (hard copy and

electronically) for approval prior to any construction work taking place. All work is to be

carried out under the supervision of the consulting engineer who is to provide the electrical

department with a certificate of completion, and as-built plans in electronic format. All

costs will be for the developer. No transfers will be approved before all the electrical

services have been satisfactorily installed and as-built submitted electronically;


responsibility;


PART Q: ANNEXURES

Annexure A – Applicant’s Motivation report

Annexure B – Title Deed

Annexure C – Locality Plan C

Annexure D - Site Development Plan

Annexure E – Surveyor General Diagram

Annexure F – Objections/Comments

Annexure G – Pre-Application Consultation Minutes

Annexure H – Evaluation Checklist


50

6.3. Consent Use, Removal of Restrictions and Departure : Erf 74, Church Street, Hoekwil (E Malan)


Reference number

74 Application submission date

31/07/2018 Date report finalized

23/10/2018


First name(s) Esté

Surname Malan

Job title Intern: Town Planner

SACPLAN registration number

C/8484/2017

Directorate/ Department

Planning and Development

Contact details [email protected]

PART B: APPLICANT DETAILS


Surname De Bruyn

Company name Marlize De Bruyn Consulting Town & Regional Planning

SACPLAN registration number

A/1477/2011

Is the applicant authorized to submit this application?

Y N

Registered owner(s)

Anna Margaretha Aletta Fourie

PART C: PROPERTY DETAILS Property description (in accordance with Title Deed)

Erf 74, Hoekwil, in the municipality and division of George, province of the Western Cape.

Physical address Church Street (Locality plan is attached hereafter as Annexure B).

Town/City George


51

Current zoning Agricultural Zone II Extent 2,7187 ha Are there existing buildings on the property?

Y N

Applicable Zoning Scheme

George Integrated Zoning Scheme, 2017

Current Land Use Smallholding Title Deed number & date

T69946/2015 (hereafter attached as Annexure C)

Any restrictive title conditions applicable?

Y N If Yes, list condition number(s)

D(b)

Any third party conditions applicable?

Y N If Yes, specify

Any unauthorised land use/building work?

Y N If Yes, explain

The existing structure on the property consisted of 3 dwelling units. Legal steps from the Municipality was followed and the application is to rectify the illegal land use.

PART D: PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION Has pre-application consultation been undertaken?

Y N If yes, attach the minutes of the consultation.

Reference Number

74, Hoekwil Date of consultation

30/07/2018 Official’s name

J. Fourie


c. Rezoning b. Permanent

departure X

kk. Temporary departure

ll. Subdivision

mm. Consolidation

nn. Amendment, suspension or deletion of restrictive conditions

X

oo. Permissions required in terms of the zoning scheme

pp. Amendment, deletion or additional conditions in respect of existing approval

qq. Extension of validity period

rr. Approval of an

overlay zone

ss. Phasing, amendment or cancellation of subdivision plan

tt. Permissions required in terms of conditions of approval

uu. Determination of zoning

vv. Closure of

public place ww. Consent use X xx. Occasional use

yy. Establishment of a Home Owners Association

zz. Rectify Beach of

Home Owners Association

aaa. Reconstruct

building of non-conforming use

Other


52

PART F: APPLICATION DESCRIPTION To consider the following applications applicable to Erf 74, Hoekwil;

1. Consent use in terms of 15(2)(o) of the Land Use Planning By-Law for George Municipality, 2015, for a second dwelling unit of a total area of ± 238.3m2;

2. Removal of restrictive title deed condition D(b) of title deed T69946/2015 in terms of 15(2)(f) of the said By-Law

3. Departure in terms of Section 15(2)(b) of the said By-Law, for the relaxation of the following development parameters;

a. Eastern street building line from 20m to 7.2m for the existing structure and 3.0m for the carport and storage structure;

b. Increase in size of the second dwelling unit from 150m2 to 238.3m2 (including covered entrance, carport and storage structure).

PART G: BACKGROUND The property is 2.7187ha in extent and there is no bond registered for the property. The owner took transfer of the property during 2015. The existing structure on the property consisted of 3 dwelling units in one structure. Following legal steps from the Municipality the owner was ordered to cease all illegal land use activities and submit the required land use applications. The kitchen forming a third dwelling unit was recently removed.

PART H: SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS MOTIVATION The applicant’s motivation is annexed hereafter as Annexure A and is summarised as follows; ▪ This land use application is required to justify the use of the property. ▪ The title deed for Erf 74, Hoekwil restrict the number of dwelling units for the property in paragraph

D(b) to one. According to the zoning (Agriculture Zone II), it is possible to apply for a second dwelling unit as a consent use. There is conflict between the title deed and the zoning of the property. This restriction is found in almost all Hoekwil-title deeds and have been removed successfully numerous times.

▪ With this land use application, the complete removal of paragraph D(b) from the title deed is requested.

▪ The owner wishes to obtain land use approval for the existing second dwelling unit within the existing structure. From aerial photography, the single storey structures on the property was already in existence by 2003. The owner is doing what is needed to rectify the land use of the property.

▪ The eastern and smaller section of the structure forms the second dwelling unit which consist of a covered entrance, three bedrooms, a kitchen/living room and a separate carport and storage structure located just south of the structure. The second dwelling unit covers an area of ±144.5m² plus approximately 93.8m² for the separate carport and storage structure. Which amounts to a total area of ±238.3m². Therefore, a departure for the increase in size of the second dwelling unit from 150m² to ±238.3m² is required.

▪ Other structures on the property is the garden shed with an area of ±100m². These structures are used for the care and maintenance of Erf 74, Hoekwil (primarily for the primary dwelling unit).


53

▪ Considering the aim of this land use application for Erf 74, Hoekwil this development proposal complies with the relevant spatial plans (Section 19(1) of LUPA).

▪ Spatial sustainability as described in Section 7(b) of SPLUMA is relevant as an existing residential property and an existing structure is used to its full potential, using existing services and making the necessary capital contribution to the Municipality for the provision of such services.

▪ Prime and unique agricultural land is not affected by this land use application. ▪ Environmental matters are not directly relevant as an existing structure is the subject of this land

use application. Maximizing the use of existing properties within the existing rural residential area is however positive from an environmental perspective especially within the Wilderness environment. This is linked to the prevention of urban sprawl although the subject property is not located within an urban area but a small holding area.

▪ The effective and equitable functioning of land markets is not negatively affected by this land use application.

▪ It is stated that all current and future costs to all parties for the provision of infrastructure and social services in land developments must be considered. This land use application entails the proposed use of an existing residential structure to its full potential, using existing services and making the necessary capital contribution to the Municipality for the provision of such services.

▪ This development proposal will not negatively impact on the community of Hoekwil. ▪ This development proposal for Erf 74, Hoekwil will optimise the use of the existing resources and

infrastructure available to the property. This proposal cannot have a negative impact regarding financial, social, economic or environmental considerations for the relevant authorities. They can only gain from this proposal.

▪ Spatial resilience as described in Section 7(d) of SPLUMA is not fully relevant to this land use application.

▪ The public interest of this land use application is limited as the existing structure of Erf 74, Hoekwil has been in existence for many years. Two dwelling units are accommodated in one structure. The appearance of the dwelling will remain the same with no impact on the character of the neighbourhood.

▪ The municipal engineering services provided to Erf 74, Hoekwil most likely requires no upgrade as everything is existing.

▪ No conflict is found between this proposal for Erf 74, Hoekwil and the GSDF. This land use application is therefore in accordance with the requirements of Section 19 of the Land Use Planning Act, 2014.

▪ As the primary and second dwelling unit is in one structure it adheres to the development parameter which states that the style of a second dwelling unit must be similar to the architecture of the main dwelling house.

▪ Due to the size of this small holding, the building line on all boundaries are 20m. The position of the existing structures necessitates the relaxation of the eastern street building line from 20m to 7.2m for the existing structure accommodating the primary and second dwelling unit and to 3.0m for the carport and storage structure.

▪ With this land use application, the complete removal of paragraph D(b) in title deed T69946/2015 is requested. This said paragraph restricts the number of dwelling units for Erf 74, Hoekwil to one. It reads as follows; “Geen geboue uitgesonderd een woning vir die gebruik deur ‘n enkele familie, tesame met die buitegeboue wat gewoonlik nodig is om in verband daarmee gebruik te word, mag op hierdie grond opgerig word nie”.

▪ According to the zoning, Agriculture Zone II – small holding, it is possible to apply for a second dwelling unit as consent use. There is conflict between the title deed and the zoning of the property.


54

This restriction is found in almost all Hoekwil-title deeds and have been removed successfully numerous times.

▪ The removal of this condition will not have a negative impact regarding financial or other value of the rights for any person as the principle of this development proposal is possible in terms of the zoning by-law and not in conflict with spatial planning.

▪ The owner of Erf 74, Hoekwil will be able to maximise the potential of the property without changing the character of the property or the area. Removing or not removing the restriction will have no direct social impact. The Municipality will benefit through services contributions and other fees as well as ultimately constant revenue from two dwellings for municipal services including property tax.

▪ The character of the area will not change as this land use application has no impact on the character of the area.

▪ The motivation report shows that this land use application for consent use for a second dwelling unit with departures, will not change the appearance of the property and therefore holds no conflict with any relevant consideration as prescribed by legislation.

PART I: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Methods of advertising Date published Closing date for objections Press Y N N/A 17/08/2018 17/09/2018 Gazette Y N N/A Notices Y N N/A 17/08/2018 17/09/2018 Website Y N N/A Ward councillor Y N N/A On-site display Y N N/A Community organisation(s)

Y N N/A

Public meeting Y N N/A Third parties Y N N/A Other

Y N If yes, specify

Total valid objections

One Total invalid objections and petitions

-

Valid petition(s) Y N If yes, number of signatures N/A Community organisation(s) response

Y N N/A Ward councillor response Y N N/A

Total letters of support

None

Was the minimum requirement for public participation undertaken in accordance with relevant Bylaw on Municipal Land Use Planning and any applicable Council Policy

Y N


55

PART J: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The objection is attached hereafter as Annexure F and is summarised as follows; Due to the fact that the land use application is for existing structures, WALEAF has no objection to the proposal except for the relaxation of the eastern street boundary building line from 20m to 3m for the carport and the storage structure. WALEAF is of the opinion that the structure can be relocated further from the boundary. As the property is 2,7ha in extent, a carport 3m from the boundary is too close to the street in the rural area.

PART K: SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REPLY TO OBJECTIONS The applicant’s reply to objections is attached hereafter as Annexure E and is summarised as follows;

▪ WALEAF only objects to the relaxation from 20m to 3m for the carport and storage structure that has been in this position since at least 2005. WALEAF is of the opinion that it must be relocated, and it is too close to the street in the rural area.

▪ According to the applicant’s information, nobody has complained about the position of the structure in the past 13 years.

▪ Numerous other properties in the section of Church Street has structures at least 5m from the street boundary.

▪ There are many other examples in Hoekwil. Therefore, the request for Erf 74, Hoekwil is not in conflict with the specific character of Hoekwil.

PART L: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS AND/OR ORGANS OF STATE COMMENTS

Name of Department Date Summary of comments

Recommendation

Civil Engineering Services

14/08/2018 See conditions of approval

The Directorate Supports the application. Subject to conditions, as per conditions of approval.

Electrotechnical Services

14/08/2018 See conditions of approval

The Directorate Supports the application. Subject to conditions as per conditions of approval.

PART M: MUNICIPAL PLANNING EVALUATION ( REFER TO RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GUIDELINE) Is the proposal consistent with the principles referred to in chapter 2 of SPLUMA? (can be elaborated further below)

Y N

Is the proposal consistent with the principles referred to in chapter VI of LUPA? (can be elaborated further below)

Y N

Application history There is no previous land use planning application on this property. The owner took transfer of the property during 2015. The existing structure on the property consisted of 3 dwelling units in one structure. Following legal steps from the Municipality the owner was ordered to cease all illegal land use activities and submit the required land use application for consent for a second


56

dwelling unit, which also included the departure of the building lines and removal of restrictive condition. The one kitchen forming a third dwelling unit was recently removed.

(In)consistency with the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act 16 of 2013) N/A

(In)consistency with the principles referred to in Chapter Vl of the Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of 2014) (Section 65 of the By-law) The proposed departure and removal of restriction is consistent with Chapter VI of LUPA because the application complies with the listed land use planning principles.

(In)consistency with the IDP/Various levels of SDF’s/Applicable policies The Wilderness Lakes and Hoekwil LSDF does not have specific guidelines for the area where Erf 74, Hoekwil is located, but in general the rural landscape should be protected and the rural character be maintained. The LSDF also have the approach to prevent further development of smallholdings or extensive residential lifestyle properties in the rural landscape. The second dwelling is located within the existing structure and therefore have visually no impact. The second dwelling will not encourage an extensive rural lifestyle property and therefore the proposal is in line with the applicable policy.

(In)consistency with guidelines prepared by the Provincial Minister N/A Outcomes of investigations/applications i.t.o other laws N/A

Existing and proposed zoning comparisons and considerations N/A

The need and desirability of the proposal Desirability from a planning perspective is defined as the degree of acceptability of a proposed development on a property. The relevant factors include the physical characteristics of the property, existing planning in the area, character of the area, the locality and accessibility of the property as well as the provision of services. Physical characteristics of the property Erf 74, Hoekwil is a developed rural residential property with an existing structure consisting of two dwellings without changing the appearance of the existing structure. This land use application is not affected by the physical characteristics of the property and vice versa. Existing planning in the area


57

As indicated earlier in this motivation report, this land use application is not in conflict with any relevant spatial plan applicable to the subject property. Character of the area As nothing will change on the ground this land use application will have no impact on the character of the area. Provision of services The municipal engineering services provided to these properties will not be affected but services contributions will be payable. It is evident that the land use application for Erf 74, Hoekwil does not lack desirability.

PART N: ADDITIONAL PLANNING EVALUATION FOR REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS Financial or other value of the rights affected From the evaluation of the proposed development, it is evident that removal of restrictive paragraph D(b) in title deed T69946/2015 is not likely to affect the rights of the subject property nor the surrounding properties’ values. Benefits to the holder of such rights in terms of the restrictive condition The restrictive condition is imposed to limit the property to one dwelling house. The extent of the encroachment, when considering the extent of the property, is minor. The land use application is a mere legalization for structures that have been in that position since at least 2005. The second dwelling is in the same structure as the primary dwelling and therefore no additional visual intrusion will be visible. The proposal allows the owner to make optional use of the property without impacting on the surrounding area or neighbours. Personal benefits which will accrue to the applicant The owner of the property’s only additional benefits after completion of the land use application, is that the structures on the property will be legalized. As mentioned, the structures have been constructed at least 13 years ago and according to the records, no one has ever lodged a complaint – not even during the public participation process, except for WALEAF, which is not an adjoining or affected neighbour. Social benefit of the restriction remaining in place The restriction remaining in place holds no social benefit as land use is managed in terms of the George Integrated Zoning Scheme Bylaw, 2017.

Social benefit of the proposal and whether the application will completely remove all rights enjoyed by the beneficiary or only some of those rights The level of societal benefit is discussed in the sub-section above. The application will result in the removal of all the rights enjoyed by the beneficiary as listed under paragraph D(b) of the title deed T69946/2015.


58

PART O: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION Restrictive title deed condition; Condition D(b) in title deed T69946/2015 reads as follows: “Geen geboue uitgesonderd een woning vir die gebruik deur ‘n enkele familie, tesame met die buitegeboue wat gewoonlik nodig is om in verband daarmee gebruik te word, mag op hierdie grond opgerig word nie”.

The removal of the restrictive condition is required to legalize the current structures on the property and bring the existing uses in line with the George Integrated Zoning Scheme Bylaw, 2017. Consent Use: The consent use is, for a second dwelling unit of a total area of ± 238.3m2 as to also legalize the existing structures on the property. According to the zoning, Agriculture Zone II – small holding, it is possible to apply for a second dwelling unit as consent use. There is conflict between the title deed and the zoning of the property. This restriction is found in almost all Hoekwil-title deeds and have been removed successfully numerous times. Permanent Departure: The application for departure is required to legalise existing structures on the property, being a second dwelling and a carport.

The structures on the property was erected no later than 2005. In the thirteen years since, no complaint was received regarding the location or the extent of the structures. The approval of this land use application will thus not result in any additional rights granted to the property. bbb. There will be no effect on the adjoining neighbour’s sunlight, views or privacy. The relaxations are also in line with character of the street where houses and outbuildings are located over the street building line. It is also not uncommon to find second dwellings of between 200m² and 300m² in the area. The departure, removal of restriction and consent use will result in nothing additional than what is currently occurring and has previously been approved in the area. Thus, on the balance of all considerations the proposal submitted cannot be considered to be undesirable in terms of Section 65 of the Land-Use Planning Bylaw for George Municipality, 2015 and is therefore SUPPORTED.

PART P: RECOMMENDATION That, notwithstanding the objection received, the following applications applicable to Erf 74, Hoekwil:

1. Removal of restrictive title deed condition D(b) of title deed T69946/2015 in terms of 15(2)(f) of the said By-Law to permit a second dwelling;


59

2. Consent use in terms of 15(2)(o) of the Land Use Planning By-Law for George Municipality, 2015, for a second dwelling unit;

3. Departure in terms of Section 15(2)(b) of the said By-Law, for the relaxation of the following development parameters;

a) Eastern street building line from 20m to 7.2m for the existing structure and 3.0m for the carport and storage structure;

b) Increase in size of the second dwelling unit from 150m2 to 238.3m2 (including covered entrance, carport and storage structure).

BE APPROVED in terms of Section 60 of the said By-law for the following reasons:

1. It will not have a negative impact on the character of the surrounding environment; 2. The proposal is consistent / not in conflict with the spatial development objectives for the area; 3. The proposed land use will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding urban environment,

natural environment or streetscape; 4. The applied for will not detract from the surrounding land use and aesthetic character of the area; 5. It will not have a negative impact on the adjacent land owners land use rights or their amenity and

right to privacy, and sunlight.

Subject to the following conditions imposed in terms of Sections 66 of the said By-law, namely: CONDITIONS: DIRECTORATE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, LAND AFFAIRS & PLANNING

1. That in terms of the Land Use Planning By-law for the George Municipality, 2015, the approval shall lapse if not acted upon within a period of five (5) years from the date thereof;

2. This approval shall be taken to cover only the application applied for as indicated on the Site Development Plan dated 20/07/2018, with drawing number H18 - 07, drawn by Blueprint Draughting and attached as “Annexure F” which bears Council’s stamp and shall not be construed as to depart from any other Council requirements or legal provision;

3. The second dwelling may not be sold by means of sectional title; 4. That in terms of Section 34(1) the owner must apply to the Registrar of Deeds to make the

appropriate entries in, and endorsements on, any relevant register or title deed to reflect the removal of the restrictive condition, after the publication of a notice contemplated in Section 33(7) in the Provincial Gazette;

5. A building plan be submitted for approval in accordance with the National Building Regulations (NBR);

6. The above approval will be considered as implemented on presentation of proof of submission of the title deed endorsement to the Registrar of Deeds as well as on the issuing of an occupation certificate for the abovementioned structures.

CONDITIONS: CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES

7. Capital contributions are payable by the developer for each new equivalent erf (ee) created, as per standard tariffs for George, applicable on transfer of a portion, or the approval of building plans, or on application for a CPT, or as stipulated in a Services Agreement between the George Municipality and the Developer. The total amount payable will be determined by the Dept: CES, and will be subject to annual adjustment. Contributions payable may be adjusted should the actual


60

water usage exceed the accepted normal daily usage based on the Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design, based on a six-month average use;

8. All civil services -internal, link and relocation of or upgrades to existing - are to be designed by a registered consulting engineer in accordance with The Guidelines for Human Settlement and Design and Council specifications. All drawings and plans are to be submitted to the Dept: CES, or any other relevant authority, (hard copy and electronically) for approval prior to any construction work taking place. All work is to be carried out under the supervision of the consulting engineer who is to provide the relevant authority with a certificate of completion, and as-built plans in electronic format. All costs will be for the developer. No transfers will be approved before all the civil services have been satisfactorily installed and as-builts submitted electronically as well as the surveyors plan;

9. Any, and all, costs directly related to the development remain the developers’ responsibility; 10. Each new portion created must have separate water and sewer connections; 11. Any services from the development that must be accommodated across another erf must be

negotiated between the developer and the owner of the relevant erf. Any costs resulting from the accommodation of such services or the incorporation of these services into the network of another development are to be determined by the developer/owner of the other erf. (Condition 8 applicable);

12. Any service from another relevant erf must be accommodated across the development or incorporated into the services of the development. All negotiations will be between the owner/developer of the relevant erf and the developer. Costs for the accommodation of these services or the upgrade of the developments services to incorporate such services are to be determined by the developers/owners concerned. (Condition 8 applicable);

13. Any existing municipal or private service damaged during the development will be repaired at the developers cost and to the satisfaction of the George Municipality. (Condition 2 applicable);

14. The flood line is to be determined. No development may take place within the 1:100-year flood line or on slopes steeper than 1:4.

15. Servitudes must be registered for any pipeline not positioned within the normal building lines; 16. The applicant is to comply with the National Forests Act No 84 of 1998, should it be required; 17. Provisions for the removal of solid waste is to be addressed in conjunction with the Dept:

Environmental Services; 18. The developer is to adhere to the requirements of all relevant Acts, as well as all conditions

stipulated by any other authority whose approval was required and obtained for this proposed development.;

19. Transfers, building plan approvals and occupation certificates may be withheld if any sums of money owing to the George Municipality are not paid in full, or if any services have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Dept: CES, or any condition of any authority has not been satisfactorily complied with;

20. Developer responsible to obtain the necessary approval / way leaves from third parties which include, but not limited to the following: Telkom & Fibre optical cable;

21. Municipal water is provided for potable use only. No irrigation water will be provided; 22. A water meter must be installed by the developer prior to construction to monitor water usage

during the construction phase. The Dept: Civil Engineering Services (Water section) is to be consulted by the developer, prior to installation, regarding the required specifications. Failure to complying with the water meter application process, will result in the developer being responsible for payment of penalties and / or an estimated non-metered water consumptions by this department at a rate as per applicable tariff list. In this regard, transfers, building plan approval and occupation certificates may be withheld if any sums of money owing to the George


61

Municipality are not paid in full. The water meter is to be removed on completion of construction if so required by the Dept: CES.

23. The developer / erf owner in conjunction with Dept: Civil Engineering Services, is to apply to the George Municipality for the installation of an individual erf water meter prior to any building work commencing on an erf.

24. No municipal sewer services are available at present. Should a municipal network in future be extended to this area, the owner will be compelled, at own cost, to connect to the network. A capital contribution for sewer will then become payable as per standard tariff for each equivalent erf applicable at the time of connection.

25. A conservancy tank, or alternative approved sewer disposal method, must be installed at the owner’s cost. The owner is to appoint a private contractor, at own expense, to service the tank or alternative approved disposal method.

26. Public and private roads are to be clearly indicated on all layout plans submitted. The road reserves must be clearly indicated on all plans submitted for approval. The cadastral layout can only be approved if the road reserves have been included on plans and approved by CES.

27. The discharge of surface stormwater is to be addressed by the developer. Condition (8) applies. All costs related is for the developer;

28. Internal parking requirements (ie within the development area), position of accesses, provision for pedestrians and non-motorised transport, and other issues related to traffic must be addressed and all measures indicated on plans and drawings submitted for approval;

29. Adequate parking with a hardened surface must be provided on the premises of the proposed development;

30. No private parking will be allowed in the road reserve; 31. The approval of the layout of the development and accesses is subject to the George Roads Master

Plan and approved by the Dept: Civil Engineering Services. A site development plan is to be submitted to the Dept: CES, or any other relevant authority for approval prior to any construction work taking place;

32. Permission for access onto municipal, provincial or national roads must be obtained from the relevant authorities.

CONDITIONS: ELECTROTECHNICAL SERVICES

33. Capital contributions are payable by the developer for each new equivalent erf (ee) created, as per standard tariffs for George, applicable on transfer of a portion, or the approval of building plans, or on application for a CPT, or as stipulated in a Services Agreement between the George Municipality and the Developer. The total amount payable will be determined by the Dept: Electro Technical Services (ETS), and will be subject to annual adjustment. Contributions payable may be adjusted should the actual electricity connection be other than a conventional 60 Amp single phase per erf;

34. All electrical services -internal, link and relocation of or upgrades to the existing network - are to be designed by a registered consulting engineer in accordance with Council specifications. All drawings and plans are to be submitted to the Dept: ETS, (hard copy and electronically) for approval prior to any construction work taking place. All work is to be carried out under the supervision of the consulting engineer who is to provide the electrical department with a certificate of completion, and as-built plans in electronic format. All costs will be for the developer. No transfers will be approved before all the electrical services have been satisfactorily installed and as-builts submitted electronically;

35. Any, and all, costs directly related to the development remain the developers’ responsibility;


62

Attachment : Annexures for Erf 74, Hoekwil

Annexures_Erf 74

Hoekwil.pdf


PART Q: ANNEXURES

Annexure A Applicant’s motivation report

Annexure B Locality plan

Annexure C Title Deed T69946/2015

Annexure D WALEAF objection 15/09/2018

Annexure E Applicant’s reply to objection 19/09/2018

Annexure F Site Development Plan

Annexure G Pre-Application Consultation dated 30/07/2018

dc


63

6.4. Nsnndmnm 6.5. Bsnjsn 6.6.

Annexure “A”

Annexure “B”

Annexure “C”

Annexure “D”

Annexure “E”

Annexure “F”

Annexure “G”

MUNICIPALITY MUNISIPALITEIT › sites › default › files › documents › Agenda 27... ·...

Documents

Transcript of MUNICIPALITY MUNISIPALITEIT › sites › default › files › documents › Agenda 27... ·...