A four-storey block of flats planned for 106 Arum Road, Table View, is unwelcome as it will lead to more traffic congestion and overcrowding in the area, say residents.
Table View’s existing infrastructure cannot cope with more people flocking there, they say.
The closing date for objections to this development is Friday October 25, and, to date, only four objections appear on the City’s records.
Jody Francis, who works for a town-planning and land-surveying company, submitted the application on behalf of his client, AGP Construction Projects, the owner of the property.
The application calls for the 993m² property to be zoned from single residential to general residential (GR3) to permit 26 two-bedroom units of 62m² in a 14.5m-high block. The existing house would be demolished.
There would be one parking bay per unit, a foyer and a recreational area. The main entrance gate would be in the adjacent Donkin Avenue.
Citing a civil engineer’s report, the application claims the municipal service connections on the site would be sufficient for the increased demand from a block of flats.
Mr Francis did not respond by deadline to further questions about the development sent to him on Monday September 30. He told us over the phone on Thursday October 3 that he would get the property owner to respond but we did not hear from him by deadline and subsequent calls to Mr Francis and the owner went unanswered.
Table View resident Zelda Prins said the City let the public “have their say to bring about false hope” while blocks of flats mushroomed across Table View.
“If we object, how many of those objections are actually considered?” she said.
Another resident, Bernie Murton, said the area was already overcrowded.
“We are already struggling with homelessness in this area; we don’t need more people coming here. We, as residents, need to stand together and put a stop to this.”
The Greater Table View Action Forum (GTAF) planning portfolio head David Ayres said the organisation objected to the development as it had done with most developments mushrooming in the area.
The objection, drawn up by Mr Ayres, calls the Arum Road development bid an example of “inappropriate densification”.
The site was close to the MyCiTi bus system, but MyCiTI only gave access to limited destinations, with the CBD being the only destination to be considered as an employment area, and claims of it being an easy commuter route were “City spin and not a fact”, he said.
There were far too few work opportunities in the area, and hospitals and clinics were too far away, he said.
“This would make this location of this application inappropriate for the City to support it.”
Furthermore, a four-storey building would be “out of context” given the prominence of single-storey buildings along Blaauwberg Road and Arum Road, he said.
The City had failed to provide adequate infrastructure in the area for over a decade, and the area already suffered frequent water outages from pipe bursts, he said, adding that the electricity infrastructure was also unreliable.
He accused the City of allowing “reckless, illegal development” while knowing the Potsdam sewage plant could not cope with the increased load.
“It allowed the total destruction of a river ecosystem, nature reserve water quality and Milnerton Beach. It did this whilst promulgating a false narrative around the source of the pollution. The City frustrated community groups in an effort to cover up its role in this environmental damage,” said Mr Ayres.
Mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment Eddie Andrews said the development applicant had “motivated his application in accordance with the legislated desirability criteria, and due process has been followed”.
Despite complaints about the impact of traffic on the already “congested area”, Mr Andrews said: “No traffic impact assessment (TIA) report by a traffic consultant was submitted as part of the proposal as the number of units proposed, 26, does not trigger the requirement for submission of a TIA report. The relevant City departments will comment on the proposal, and if they believe that further information than what has been provided by the applicant is warranted, they will request such information.”
