1
SUBMISSION
To: CHAND Environmental Consultants
From: Fernwood Residents’ Association Task Team
Subject: Public Engagement Process for the Proposed Development
of Fernwood Estate, Newlands
Date: Monday, 6 August 2012
Set out below are the comments of the Task Team which has been appointed by the Fernwood Residents’ Association (FRA) to engage with the Department of Public Works through Chand Environmental Consultants concerning the proposed development of Fernwood Estate – otherwise known as the Fernwood Parliamentary Sportsgrounds - in Newlands.
These comments have been grouped according to the three development areas into which the proposed development has been divided, namely, a Conservation Area, a Cultural Historic Area and a Residential Area, plus a General category where such comments are applicable commonly to the proposals as a whole.
- Conservation Area
1.1The Task Force is pleased to note that cognisance has been taken of the environmentally sensitive forest area in the western part of the site, consisting of many streams, a wetland and forest habitat.
1.2 It notes that the proposed rehabilitation of the area including what has been used in the past as a cricket field will be undertaken in terms of a conservation management plan (CMP) approved by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. The Task Force wishes to be consulted on the specifics of the CMP before it is formally approved by the Department (see further comments on the contents of such a CMP in Point 4, pages 6 and 7))
1.3Clearly, it will be necessary to ensure that the wetlands are
maintained regularly in order to eliminate invasive alien
vegetation, such as has occurred in the past, and prevent its
return. Large feature trees other than identified alien invasives
shouldbe retained.
1.4In addition, the Task Force seeks feedback from Chand on what steps are being taken to ensure that the designated area is preserved as such in perpetuity, either through specific zoning or some other form ofprotection eg a Declared Wetland.
1.5Could details please be provided on how the habitat of the Knysna Warbler, a rare bird, which breeds in the shrubbery in the forested part on the very southwestern part of the property, will be protected. Please refer to the specialist study undertaken at the time of the previous development proposals.
2. Cultural Historic Area
2.1 So far precious little detail has been provided about what is
actually being proposed for the restoration and redevelopment
of this area, a comment that applies equally forcefully to the
proposed Residential Area. The Task Force urges that this
should be rectifiedby the time the second Open House is held
at a date to be determined.
2.2 From experience in the past, the Task Force believes that it is
necessary to impose restrictions on the number and duration of
“events” to be held in and around the Manor House and
adjoining areas that fall within the “cultural historic” ambit.
There should beno difficulty in applyingsuch restrictions,
bearing in mind that,apart from protectingresidents who live
in the vicinity of the Estate, there would need to be similar
protection for those whoare to occupy theproposed 15 to 18
“ministerial residences” that are seen as forming the
Residential Area.
Attached to this submission is a copy of an agreement that was
reached between the owners of the Alphen Hotel in Constantia
and the occupants of the linked residential development known
as Newcourt which applies restrictions on activities likely to
disrupt or overly disturb the parties concerned. The Task Force
believes the agreement provides useful guidelines for a set of
restrictions applicable to Fernwood’s proposed Cultural
Historic area.
2.3 The Task Force also looks forward to seeing far more specific
proposals for the siting of sports facilities in this zone.It suggests
that a Sports Facilities Plan be compiled that takes into
consideration the overall site, development proposals and the
input from the FRA.It also proposes that, once these facilities
have been rejuvenated,Fernwood residents should be invited to
join as private paying members of the club or clubs that should be
formed to manage the facilitiesand thus help to make such clubs
more sustainable.
2.4 The Task Force notes that very little detailed information has been
provided at this stage about parking facilities for the zones which
in turn are linked to the controversial issue of access to and egress
from the Estate both in respect of the Cultural Historic area and
the Residential area (see further comments under General).
2.5 If there is to be a true commitment to the cultural and historic
heritage attached to the Manor House and, to some extent, Long
House, the Task Force trusts that, as part of their restoration,
attention will be paid to re-integrating items reflecting this
heritagewhich, it understands, were removed for safe-keeping by
the Department of Public Works as the facilities fell into
increasing disuse and disrepair.
2.6Any landscaping work should aim to understand the original intent of the gardens (eg examining remaining hard landscaping, photographs and plans), preserve what is worth preserving and then add new ideas as necessary to update gardens and ensure that they are visually striking and complement the Manor House.
2.7Certain elements which have been added over time (eg tennis courts) are likely to detract from the envisaged visual arc and should be relocated.
2.8Given that Boshof Avenue is a popular walking/pedestrian area,
the gardens should be designed to enable viewing from both
Boshof Avenue and the Manor House.
- Residential Area
3.1The Task Force supports the proposed positioning of the
ministerial houses in the NE quadrant of the site. This area is
the least sensitive part of the estate and will have little
negative impact on the neighbourhood. It benefits from being
effectively screened by mature trees.
3.2That said, the specifics available for comment in respect of this area are so sparse at this stage that it could aptly be described as a “grey” area. Many questions abound. They centre on such aspects as architectural design, housing density and positioning of the proposed residences, entrance to and exit from the estate, street interface,traffic flowin the surrounding roads, sewer and stormwater capacities and the likely permanent and transient populace on the estate (including staff employed to provide necessary services).
Dealing with these aspects seriatim:
- Architectural Design
The design of the new houses should not be seen in isolation but rather within the context of the historic houses/homes of Fernwood, most notably the Manor House on the Estate, and Tabora, Boshof House at No. 12 Boshof Avenue, built in 1776 and Akkerdorp, No.10 Boshof Avenue amongst those off the Estate, taken together with the historic Boshof Gates at the entrance to the Avenue.
- Housing Density
The proposed number of houses represents a low density on the site and the impact should be slight IF the houses are well designed and well positioned. The actual size of the houses is critical. They should not “over scale” the historic Manor House and would need to be carefully and sensitively placed away from the significant view lines towards and from the Manor House.
- Entrance to and Exit from the Estate
Of concern to Task Force members who attended the first Open Day was the apparent intention (although not definitively stated) to create an entrance to and exit from the Estate off Boshof Avenue and not off Rhodes Drive. Boshof Avenue is a major recreational road used both by Fernwood residents and outsiders for walking and jogging. In addition, it is subjected to a hectic “rat run”by motorists entering Fernwood at peak hours either via Rose Street or the bridge over the Liesbeek connecting Bishopscourt with Riverside Road in Fernwood, despite prominent signage at both points declaring them closed between 7.00am and 8.30am. If residents on the Estate leave Fernwood and attempt to exit via one of the already congested streets with poor sightlines, this will only exacerbate an existing problem.The Task Force recommends that there should be no more than a pedestrian gate on to Boshof Avenue so that residents can use the area for walking etc.
From this it can be seen that the Task Force is a strong advocate of retaining the main entrance offRhodes Drive as this is the main feeder route to the area. It may mean creating a new (or second) entrance at a suitable point on Rhodes Drive to serve inter alia as a service entrance for delivery vehicles and buses.
The traffic flow and the feeder route(s) in and out of the Estate are central to success of the development. Because of this, the Task Force urges that a more rigorous study be undertaken than has been done hitherto, incorporating key influences such as schools/universities in session, Parliamentary sittings, the impact of changing seasons and inclement weather, tourism peaks, Kirstenbosch concerts etc. The study should not just consider motorised transport but also the many other users of Boshof Avenue. Consideration should also be given to the extent that this non-motorised use could increase as a result of improvements in the amenities for pedestrians and in the level of safety.
- Sewer and Stormwater Capacities
The Task Force believes it will be necessary to make an assessment of sewer and stormwater capacities in the area. There have been a
number of cluster home developments in Fernwood, without any increase in the capacity of the sewer system. The addition of a further 18 houses plus the plan to use the Manor House and Long House for conferences will inevitablyadd to the pressure on the system.
In particular, there are on record with the City of Cape Town (vide Mr Martin Thompson) known incidents of sewers overflowing and polluting Boshof Stream, one of the small streams feeding the wetland to be rehabilitated, whenever a spell of high intensity rainfall occurs.
Furthermore, as the area exceeds the threshold level at which Stormwater bylaws of the City of Cape Town come into effect, could the proponent please provide details of how the increased run-off will be managed, whilst conforming to the Stormwater bylaws.
- Increased Populace
The Task Force proposes that an assessment be made of the anticipated populace which will flow from the proposed development, bearing in mind the likely security level which will be imposed in and around the ministerial houses as well as staff hired to work on the Estate. All these people will need transport to and from work which will increase the amount of traffic throughout the day.
- General Comments Applicable to the Development as a Whole
4.1Need for a Basic Assessment in terms of NEMA
The Background Information Document states that the proposed development activities are “unlikely to trigger any listed activities” as described in the NEMA regulations. The Task Force believes that on several substantive grounds an
application for a Basic Assessment (BA) in terms of NEMA should be undertaken. These grounds include the following:
4.1.1Considering the complexity of the proposed
development(as evidenced by the numerous applications that
are required),there are several borderline cases which might
indeed act as “triggers”
4.1.2NEMA makes provision for the developer or proponent
(inthis case, the Department of Public Works) to engage
voluntarily in an environmental authorisation process, even
if no activities trigger such a requirement but due to other
reasons
4.1.3Rehabilitation of a wetland in itself requires a Basic
Assessment as work would be done within 32m of a
watercourse
4.1.4There is a need for integrating the various aspects in a
rigorous process whereby Interested and Affected Parties
(I&APs) – which could include the local authority, the FRA
and “other groups identified by the Heritage and Planning
practitioners” – could participate on a structured basis. No
such basis exists for approval of a Conservation Management
Plan (CMP) or an Integrated Development Plan (IDP).
4.1.5The outcome of a BA would include a Record of
Decision (RoD) which would be binding on the proponent and
which would include, the Task Force argues, an Environment
Management Plan (EMP), independent audits and the
formation of a formal Residents Monitoring Committee
4.1.6The voluntary application for a Basic Assessment
would be a demonstration of acting in good faith
4.2Key Issues to be included in the Conservation Management Plan and the Integrated Development Plan:
The Task Force’s concern is that the CDP and the IDP will
focus overly on the immediate development issues (ie short
term). Hence the following key issues need to be included in
both plans:
4.2.1How will the development proposals be managed and maintained on an on-going basis?
4.2.2How will the day-to-day operations of the estate be undertaken?
4.2.3How will the eradication of the invasive aliens be undertaken on an on-going basis?
4.2.4Neither CDPs or IDPs are really suited to address the ongoing operations, maintenance, management and monitoring of the development. A good EMP is much better suited but it needs to be enforced by being part of an RoD
4.2.5The CDP and IDP must include aspects covering staffing, budgets, reporting and monitoring if not included in the EMP
4.3Need and Desirability of the proposals
Reference to the Guideline on Need and Desirability issued by the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning shows an onus is placed on the proponent – the Dept of Public Works – to demonstrate the need and desirability of the proposals.
As with many development proposals, the current ones aim to internalise all the benefits (more houses, restoration and rehabilitation etc) while the dis-benefits (disadvantages or costs) are externalised to the surrounding community. This approach is contrary to a sustainable development and hence a better balance in the sharing of benefits and disadvantages of the proposed development needs to be achieved. There are several opportunities, some of which are alluded to in the comments made by the Task Force (eg the widening of the Boshof Avenue verge through a session of land to include a pedestrian footpath – see Point 4.5 below))
4.4Security Layout
The Task Force recognises the need for security and privacy for the 18 ministerial houses but would object strongly if the whole of the Fernwood Estate would become “sterilised” as a result. It suggests instead a two-tier security system which would enable the residents of Fernwood to gain access to portions of the estate, if necessary under controlled circumstances, to use the sports facilities, manor house etc, even if this is on a “user pays” basis.
4.5Street Interface
The development offers an opportunity to create an important and desirable interface with Boshof Avenue and Rhodes Drive. Both these routes are in high use by joggers and walkers (in particular, Boshof Avenue) but are presently compromised by extremely narrow pavements and no footpaths. The edge treatment needs, too, to reflect the characteristics of the zones identified in the Chand document: the Heritage area, the Visual Arc/Corridor and the Wetland.
A pedestrian footpath/jogging track should be established along the boundaries of both roads by setting back the fence lines by approximately 8m as is the case in the section opposite the Belgian Ambassador’s home in Boshof Avenue.
Examples of visuals illustrating this point are attached to this submission.
4.6Fencing
While it is accepted that fencing around the Estate will need to be of high security, it is essential that it should be well designed, high quality fencing, with any electrical wires carefully integrated into the design. It should also be see-through rather than solid in structure. External fencing should consist of a “heritage friendly” palisade, should be black or charcoal in colour so as not to present a visible barrier and should enable visual access to the envisaged gardens, as stated above. A good example in Fernwood would the heritage property known as None Go By at 28 Fernwood Avenue. A further good example is the fencing of Genadendal along the Main Road in Rondebosch, with a stone wall set well back from the street and a green zone being left to the front of the property. A bad example would be the new wall and electric security wiring fronting the Chinese compound in Rhodes Drive or the inexpensive Nedsteel fencing that is available. The Task Force stresses that consultation over fencing design with the residents who live in the Fernwood area is most important.
4.7Re-zoning
The Task Force would like notification, and a copy of, the official application for re-zoning of the property, prior to its submission, so that input can be provided.
4.8Specialist studies
The Task Force requests that the following studies, whether in draft form or further advanced, should be forwarded to it or made available on Chand’s website:
* Freshwater ecology or similar
* Botany or similar
* Heritage or similar
* Traffic
* Visual Impacts