Search

or

My ShortList
Advertise Property
Status:
Max Price:
At Least:
Listed:
Pictures:
[ Close ]
#
Thursday Jan 12, 2012

Sanparks to hand over Chappies land for offices

In a move that could set a precedent, Sanparks said yesterday it would de-proclaim a piece of Table Mountain National Park on Chapman's Peak Drive to allow a private toll company to build its offices.

Sanparks chief executive officer David Mabunda told the Cape Times that because the land, just over 2 100m2, had been used during construction of Chapman's Peak drive, it had "no significant biodiversity value, and can be excised for purposes of developments that are in the public interest, given the well-known problem of land shortage in Cape Town".

Mabunda said "the deproclamation process of this piece of land is now under way in terms of the Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003".

He said he believed the Western Cape government, which had altered the road reserve to include a chunk of national park so the office could be built for the toll company Entilini, was "acting in the interest of the public and country with this development, hence our full support for the development".

Mabunda's move has drawn a shocked response from members of the public, who say this will set a precedent.

Melissa Fourie, director of the Centre for Environmental Rights, described Sanparks' decision as "bizarre".

"When I first read about this development I thought it was an April Fool's joke, especially coming after the big issue over Oudekraal. How do they justify it politically and morally? What benefit do we as the public get from it? What is their justification for putting this thing up on Chapman's Peak? Shortage of land? Oh please! The precedent SANParks has set is that they will have to justify in future why they don't de-proclaim other pieces of national parks for private use - and how will they do that?" Fourie said.

Terry Wyner of the Civil Rights Action Group said yesterday: "I am shocked. I can't believe our custodians of national parks can say: 'Oh well, it's useless land, it can go'. And one of the reasons they give is shortage of land in Cape Town? Hellooo. They can't give it to the people of Hangberg on the other side, but they can give it to a private company on Chapman's Peak. The point they're missing is that this is state land, for public use, and they're giving it to a private company."

He said Murray & Roberts' mission statement talks about commitment to sustainability and the environment, "but what's happening here is about environment. It's huge. I'm devastated."

Murray and Roberts is the senior partner of the Entilini Concession company.

Asked to comment on the public outcry yesterday and the fact that lawyers acting for residents say construction on the land is unlawful until Parliament has de-proclaimed it, Murray & Roberts spokesman Ed Jardim said: "We believe that due process has been followed and, as part of the concession agreement, Entilini has been given the required and lawful approval to construct the operations office on this site."

Mabunda said yesterday that the toll gate project had gone through an environmental impact assessment (EIA) during which the public were given an opportunity to "state their side of the story".

He said the then environment minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, had approved the development in 2008.

In 2009 his successor, Buyelwa Sonjica, had approved site plans for the buildings.

Penny Brown of the Hout Bay Residents' Association said yesterday Mabunda's move would "set a bad precedent and encourage Sanparks to de-proclaim bits of national parks for all sorts of reasons".

However, Patrick Dowling of the Wildlife and Environment Society of SA said: "To the best of our knowledge the issue of a de-proclamation or withdrawal of part of the park to accommodate a tolling booth and office block was not comprehensively dealt with in the EIA process that Dr Mabunda refers to.

"Considering the very high public interest, the World Heritage status of Table Mountain National Park and the distinct socio-environmental nature of site, this aspect should not have been neglected," Dowling said.

"Irrespective of the biodiversity value of the area envisaged for withdrawal from the Table Mountain National Park, such a course of action must not be taken lightly.

"There are probably thousands of potentially 'less worthy' spots in the country's parks that could be proposed for de-proclamation if enough precedent was established."

He said the Protected Areas Act had clear objectives.

These included the promotion of sustainable utilisation for the benefit of the public in a manner that would preserve the ecological character and promote participation of local communities in management of protected areas.

Cape Times

Comments:

The stupidity of some people amazes me. They hacked off a large portion of the mountain to build the road in the first place, causing who knows what environmental damage in the process, but now that they want to building a small two-storey block hidden in an unsightly, useless quarry along the road, people are getting up in arms about it? It's ridiculous! They have stated numerous times that the design of the building will be environmentally sensitive and will improve the aesthetics of the area. It also makes logical sense that equipment and staff would be based by their place of work. Would it be more environmentally friendly to burn fuel and increase traffic by lugging needed equipment up and down the side of the mountain every time it is needed? I repeat: the Hout Bay Residents' Association should have no say in the matter, considering they had no issue with hacking parts of pristine mountain to house their own homes, which most certainly aren't in the public interest.

Posted by Comeau on January 12, 2012 at 09:22 AM SAST Report this Comment

I agree with Comeau.

Posted by RAY on January 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM SAST Report this Comment

What remuneration is SANParks getting for handing over such a valuable piece of land? Zero... Good job then... @Comeau... What equipment do they need to take up the mountain once the tollroad has been completed?

Posted by mdk on January 12, 2012 at 11:49 AM SAST Report this Comment

The road to hell is paved with good... in this case, logical intention.

Posted by The Artist on January 12, 2012 at 02:34 PM SAST Report this Comment

I support Comeau. The request already states that the 2100 sqm has ALREADY been used for the road building. 2100 sqm is not large at all, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. Size of a average plot. Lastly Penny Browns excuse on the 'bad precedent' is so weak as it has no bearing on the issue but rather that this will happen again and again. Its like saying that because SANParks couldn't stop a rhino from being killed, that many more will be killed because they missed saving the first one. Yikes...

Posted by John on January 12, 2012 at 02:42 PM SAST Report this Comment

This is an environmental issue. There are rules about where you can build. Areas are demarcated for preservation for a reason. This is not going to stand in court. Environmentalists are already getting ready to take this issue to court. Even if this monstrosity ends up being built it will just be demolished. We have laws, courts and rules. Nobody is above the law.

Posted by Gilbert on January 12, 2012 at 04:41 PM SAST Report this Comment

@ Comeau. Do you work for this toll company? You sound like you have a vested interest in the destruction of Table Mountain National Park.

Posted by AC on January 12, 2012 at 04:58 PM SAST Report this Comment

@Gilbert Unless the process to date is challenged on procedural grounds, the Courts will finally decide the outcome in terms of their interpretation of the public good. The latter balances the precious sensitivities of armchair environmentalists against broader societal considerations. From a mere urban design perspective, it would be visually appropriate to have a well-designed gateway to Chappies. @AC The extent to which our policies and legislation affords protection of our natural assets against development is amongst the most conservative in the world. Comeau's argument reflects a pragmatic balance, unlike the one-sided, paranoid-hysterical position adopted by yourself.

Posted by Cape Town Planner on January 12, 2012 at 05:40 PM SAST Report this Comment

@ CT Planner. Comeau balanced!! Comeau would back the construction of a nuclear power plant on the top of table mountain.

Posted by Haha on January 12, 2012 at 05:49 PM SAST Report this Comment

@Haha I was under the impression that we were having a discussion amongst reasonable individuals. Comeau's argument amounted to a number of premises and a conclusion. Your ad hominem remark is but a faint rattle in the distance. If we want diatribes, why don't you shout vitriol about Steve Hofmeyr or Malema's blue lights on the timeslive forum.

Posted by Cape Town Planner on January 12, 2012 at 06:10 PM SAST Report this Comment

@Artist.. by your logic, the road to heaven is paved with debilitating ignorance?

Posted by Cape Town Planner on January 12, 2012 at 06:16 PM SAST Report this Comment

@CT Planner. The point is a portion of a national park has been handed over to a private company to construct an office building. I don't know about you, but I don't want Table Mountain National Park to look like Sea Point and Comeau thinks that everyone who objects to this is stupid (read the 1st line of his comment). Discussion? No need. You not allowed to build office buildings on our national parks!

Posted by Ha squared on January 12, 2012 at 06:22 PM SAST Report this Comment

Sorry planner. But this issue hasn't been dealt with lawfully. It hasn't been dealt with on a national level. Parliamentary approval is lacking. Also don't forget that the ANC is in charge nationally and they can score some much needed brownie points, by embarrassing the DA and preventing the construction of this "thing".

Posted by Gilbert on January 12, 2012 at 06:44 PM SAST Report this Comment

@ Gilbert Well then it would seem that you have nothing to worry about, and Len Swimmer and the rest of the Hout Bay NIMBYists can redirect their energies towards pertinent nation-building issues like the garbage trucks arriving 20 minutes later than usual or their neighbour's tree encroaching on their viewshed. @Ha Is it not possible to draw a distinction between a nuclear power station, Sea Point and what appears to be a site office. This idea that compromise leads to nihilism which underlies much rightwing thinking ... such as Republicans claiming that allowing gays in the military will lead to the destruction of marriage. Life is not so simple.

Posted by Cape Town Planner on January 12, 2012 at 07:17 PM SAST Report this Comment

@CT Planner... "... such as Republicans claiming that allowing gays in the military will lead to the destruction of marriage" Eh!? What are you on about. You seem to keen on the high ground, but then immediately dismiss everyone else and indulge in ad hominem attacks yourself. Grow up.

Posted by mdk on January 13, 2012 at 07:38 AM SAST Report this Comment

Many of these comments are beyond amusing. Comparing a tiny two-storey office block - whether it be a part of a National Park or not - to a nuclear power plant on top of Table Mountain is beyond stupid. Such hysterics often get in the way of logic in these situations. I neither remotely work for the toll company, nor do I stay in Hout Bay or its surrounds, so if anything I am able to provide a balanced judgement on the situation. At the end of the day, the facts speak for themselves, and those are that a tiny piece of the National Park is being encroached on, which as I mentioned before is currently a useless, unsightly quarry that has no environmental value whatsoever. It only serves as a reminder of the fact that we had no issue with hacking off a large chunk of the mountainside to pave it with tar. Constructing an environmentally sensitive building in its place that would allow employees to work on site seems like the logical route to take.

Posted by Comeau on January 13, 2012 at 08:42 AM SAST Report this Comment

For one, it will allow the toll company to store equipment necessary for road maintenance and repair work. Most of the "arguments" used in opposition of the new building are pure speculation and nothing more. The suggestion that handing over the quarry will be the start of our National Parks being encroached on at a country-wide scale is purely that - a suggestion. It cannot be proved because there is NO evidence to support it. The very fact that everyone is getting up in arms about this one small exception actually disproves that little theory, because it clearly doesn't happen very often. As I've said before, these self-declared "environmentalists" had no issue with hacking up land to house their own properties. I'd be interested to see how many of them drive around in polluting cars instead of using public transport, or how many of them actually recycle.

Posted by Comeau on January 13, 2012 at 08:43 AM SAST Report this Comment

At this point people are merely complaining for the sake of it, not because they've made any attempt at digesting the facts and using their brains.

Posted by Comeau on January 13, 2012 at 08:43 AM SAST Report this Comment

@ Comeau. Your logic is build on it because its useless and has no environmental value! What about table mountain , does it have a use or environmental value? No ! Let's build stuff there. And please stop comparing building a road to an office building on 2100m2. Roads, whether tarred or gravel are needed for visitors and park staff. By the way, Hout Bay isn't built on land that's part of a national park : another useless argument you brought up. I don't live in Hout Bay either but I feel I'm more objective than some architect.

Posted by Ha cubed on January 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM SAST Report this Comment

Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.

Calendar

Search

Top Property Searches:

RSS Feeds