R54m building for Chapman's Peak

[Mel]

10.01.2012

I have just come across this on the other side.

R54m building for Chapman's Peak

[Richprins]

Thanks, Mel!!!

I copied and pasted, if that's ok?

SA Time: 10 January 2012 11:08:27 AM
R54m luxury building for Chapman’s Peak

January 9 2012 at 12:04pm
By Melanie Gosling




The authorities have carved out a piece of Table Mountain National Park on Chapman’s Peak Drive to build a luxury two-storey office for a private company.

The multimillion rand office will be used by Entilini, the company that operates the toll road.

It will be one of the most exclusive offices in the country, in a national park, with views overlooking Hout Bay and the Atlantic.

Entilini has spent R1.6 million on the preliminary design, and has been reimbursed by the province. Final design fees will be R5.7m. The external lighting will cost R1.8m. The public will pay R25m of the total R54m for the office and toll plaza.

Hout Bay residents are outraged and say building the office on park land is unlawful. They have called on Sanparks chief David Mabunda and Environment Minister Edna Molewa to halt construction immediately or they will go to court.

National parks are protected by tough laws and only a resolution by Parliament can withdraw any section of one. In this case, the Western Cape government changed the boundary of the Chapman’s Peak Drive road reserve to include over 2 000m2 of Table Mountain National Park. The office will be built on part of this land – rubber-stamped by SanParks.

There are construction huts on site and building is to start soon.

Entilini calls the office a “control building” to be built alongside the proposed four-lane toll plaza on Chapman’s Peak Drive. However, residents say the 500m2 building designed to accommodate 60 staff members is far more than that.

“It’s massive. They’ve got an HR office and a boardroom and an auditor’s office – what for? And why do we need four lanes for the toll? This isn’t Las Vegas. The existing toll booths are entirely adequate and should be left as is,” said Hout Bay Residents’ Association chairman Len Swimmer.

“They’re building this office for their own aggrandisement. Nobody can build in a national park, but they’ve been handed it on a platter. It’s on public land and the benefit to the public is zilch.”

The ground floor contains a reception area and offices for the plaza manager, secretaries, a foreman, internal auditor and human resources manager. It has a staff room with a television and kitchen, a large “control room”, cash room, technician’s workshop, archive, two cloakrooms with lavatories and showers, and two other lavatories. There is a “cash collection garage”, a large storeroom and a workshop. The office has its own sewerage plant.

The upper storey has a lobby/display area, kitchen, two cloakrooms and a storeroom, and offices for the general manager, a personal assistant and concessions manager.

Residents say the upper storey is designed for parties and functions. The concessions manager’s office has sliding doors that open into a large meeting room. This opens on to a covered terrace with a skylight. There is a “service” area. Sliding doors open on to a second terrace, covered by a pergola, that overlooks a landscaped roof terrace. There is another terrace on the roof.

Residents say allowing the block on park land was a “sweetener” from the province to Entilini for agreeing to renegotiate the concession agreement to make it less onerous on the provincial government. The office building plans have been stamped by Table Mountain National Park. Although the building will be on disturbed land, it is nevertheless in the national park.

Swimmer said: “There is plenty of vacant office space in Hout Bay they can occupy. Few people have seen these plans and when they do they will be shocked.”

Although the 2 100m2 of national park land was carved away by the stroke of a pen, this was not so when engineers wanted national park land to upgrade Hospital Bend on De Waal Drive. Then, BKS project manager Freek van Renssen told the Cape Times they had wanted to get only 75m2 of land from Table Mountain National Park to build the new Angio Road bridge. Van Renssen said then: “We tried to get it, but the Table Mountain National Park is protected by two acts of Parliament, and to get just one square metre of national park land you have to go to Parliament and change two acts. So we abandoned that.”

The Cape Times asked Transport and Public Works MEC Robin Carlisle why this was the case for national park land on one side of the peninsula but not the other. Carlisle knew no details of the Hospital Bend upgrade but said “nothing will make me believe” the proposed building was unlawful. Constructing the office required a “small incursion” into Table Mountain National Park “which was signed off by the CEO so it’s all above board”.

Lawyers acting for residents have written to authorities to say that national parks are protected at the highest level by the National Environment Management: Protected Areas Act, that a resolution of the National Assembly is required to withdraw any portion of land from a national park and that, because this has not happened, the proposed construction is unlawful.

Sanparks legal manager Sibusiso Nyembe said it was “looking at the issues”, while the Western Cape Premier’s Office wrote that it was obtaining legal advice.

Robert Pomario of Entilini Concessions did not want to comment.

l There will be a public protest march on January 22 starting at 10am from both ends of Chapman’s Peak Drive. - Cape Times



One thing I know is that those Hout bay people don't take any nonsense!!

[Mel]

Sure, RP!

More from today - on news24.com

Outrage over Chapman's Peak office block
2012-01-10 10:21

Cape Town - Civic groups and environmentalists have lashed out at plans to build a two-storey luxury office block on Cape Town's scenic Chapman's Peak Drive, the Cape Times newspaper reported on Tuesday.

The building, part of the multimillion-rand toll plaza development, will house the staff of Entilini, the private company that runs the toll road, and will be built on Table Mountain National Park land.

Philip Bam, deputy director of the Greater Cape Town Alliance, said Chapman's Peak belonged to all South Africans.

"No one has the right to claim it as their own," he told the newspaper.

"The reason we have [SA National Parks] is to protect our national parks and there is no way they should have allowed any encroachment. Parks should be sacrosanct. People do that route to see nature, not concrete."

Inquiry

Bam said it was arrogant of Transport MEC Robin Carlisle to say nothing would make him believe the proposed building would be unlawful because it would be on national park land.

Carlisle said constructing the office required a "small incursion" into Table Mountain National Park "which was signed off by the CEO so it’s all above board".

"We don’t need a monstrosity on the mountain with boardrooms and showers and entertainment rooms," said Terry Wyner, of the Civil Rights Action Group.

Patrick Dowling, of the Wildlife and Environment Society of SA, said he would support an inquiry into the legality of using parks land for the office building.

"The toll road has been highly contentious from the beginning. The issue for the need for the toll road was not satisfactorily dealt with, in the view of many citizens of Cape Town."

Making national park land available for a commercial activity such as this could set an unhealthy precedent for other national parks in the rest of the country, Dowling said.

A resolution by Parliament is required before any part of a national park can be withdrawn.


- SAPA

[iNdlovu]

I sent an email to Gareth Morgan MP and member of standing committee on Water & Environmental Affairs on this issue.
Here is my email:

Good day Gareth,
I trust you had a great Christmas and may I wish you and your family a superb 2012.

I was completely shocked to read an article which stated that the erstwhile Dr Mabunda from Sanparks 'gave away' a portion of land belonging to Table Mountain National Park in order for an office building to be constructed alongside Chapman's Peak Drive for the company called Entilini.
Please may I enquire if you have any information as to whether a resolution has been passed by Parliament, legalising the 'sale' of this land that belongs to every citizen of South Africa.

We have corresponded in the past over concerns of SanPark's actions within our National Parks and to me this is the final straw. If this is not stopped, I hold absolutely no hope for the future of our National Parks in this country. Dr Mabunda and his board are, in my opinion, totally out of control. Your standing committee on Environmental Affairs have already indicated that SanParks should re-think their commercialization strategy, but it seems they are ignoring the committee and certainly ignore the fundamental ideas of what National parks are all about.
It is high time that Dr Mabunda and his board be called to resign their posts at SanParks and a new board be appointed who will carry out their prime mandate which is conserve our wild areas and certainly not to sign land off for the construction of offices at will.

I trust you will raise the issue urgently, before it is too late to put a halt to this madness.

Regards,

Tony Page
Africa Wild Conservation Forum

[iNdlovu]

Here is Gareth's reply.

Hi Tony
Thank you for your mail.
I was only alerted to to this issue today when I read the Cape Times.
The alienation of any part of Table Mountain National Park has not come before the committee in Parliament, which it would have to as if national park land is sold it has to come before parliament for approval.
I will question the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs on this issue at the earliest opportunity (which is when parliament opens in the first week of February). If it is national park land that has been sold then the law has been broken, and SANParks must be held to account. But I do wish to establish the facts clearly.
Regards
Gareth Morgan

[Lisbeth]

I want Mabunda and his group out of SanParks now and will put as much pressure on to ensure it happens. For me it has gone passed hotels, logging mining, office blocks, inability to protect Rhino & Elephant etc. these guys are totally out of control and will do all kinds of ridiculous things to show the "Elitist ", Ox Wagon type, concerned conservation minded people like you and I, that he is in charge and will do exactly what he wants with our heritage. Well I've got news for him

In May of 2010, myself and a few mates did a bike ride for the charity known as Operation Smile (free maxilo facial surgery for kids and adults born with facial defects such as cleft lips & pallets) where we rode the entire circumference of South Africa on our Honda Blackbird bikes. approx 7500 k's in 6 days). Anyway, on the leg from Cape Town to PE, we had a quick stop on Chapman's to photograph the incredible early morning scenery. The spot where these pics below were taken is about 50 meters from where this building will be erected unless Mabunda is stopped.

Now I ask you, is it necessary to stuff up this unbelievable beauty



In this pic you can just see the toll gate in the very right edge of the pic, that's how close it is



Our bikes parked at the spot




The stupidity of this project defies all logic, but the crunch for me is that land belonging to our National Parks and therefore all SA citizens is being given away illegally (it seems) to enable this criminal act to happen.

I want Mabunda and his group out of SanParks now and will put as much pressure on to ensure it happens. For me it has gone passed hotels, logging mining, office blocks, inability to protect Rhino & Elephant etc. these guys are totally out of control and will do all kinds of ridiculous things to show the "Elitist ", Ox Wagon type, concerned conservation minded people like you and I, that he is in charge and will do exactly what he wants with our heritage. Well I've got news for him

I could have told you that long time ago...Salary collectors (LOTS of lovely lolly every month) and its got NOTHING to do with Conservation YET again..., Anything we hold dear like good schools , hospitals, National Parks will be fast tracked to destruction!!

My mouth is still wide open It is beyond belief Has Sanparks gone completely beserk?

As I do not want to have to delete my own post, I cannot write what I am thinking

[Lisbeth]

"Full Story: 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"

[Richprins]

The truth about Chappies toll plaza’ – Robin Carlisle

Published on January 11, 2012 in Property News



It is understandable that Hout Bay and Noordhoek residents should be aggrieved by the “Chappies” toll road and all the problems that have accompanied it.

The whole process leading to the barring down of the upper slopes and finally to the toll road was, in my view, a disastrous technical decision, and I said so repeatedly while I was in opposition. The contract that brought the toll into being was extremely prejudicial to the province, the picnickers, the hikers, the tourists and those who use it on their way to and from work.

Thus, when I became the MEC, I inherited a binding contract that had been conceived in sin or insanity – there is no other possibility. The pass was more often closed than not. The concessionaire not only had the power to close the pass at will, he was also liberally paid by the province even while the pass was closed. All of this was courtesy of previous ANC governments.

I was determined to renegotiate the contract to eliminate its worst aspects. With the aid of the new majority interest in Entilini and with the assistance of the National Treasury, we were able to amend the contract to one that is significantly more beneficial to the users, the taxpayer and the province. The province will get back the R60m-odd it has coughed up for so-called “designated” events and it now decides whether the pass is closed or not.

The province will, over time, not only recover all present and future costs – including its contribution to the toll plaza – it will also benefit by a share of profits from the contract.

A 12-year project to remove alien vegetation and replant fynbos on the high peaks (which should have been done years ago) is now being implemented by Sanparks.

Motorists will be aware that except for a few short weather events, the pass has not been closed since the agreement was signed.

We have thus sought to mitigate a bad situation, and to the greatest degree this has been achieved.

Therefore it was surprising to be confronted by a series of Cape Times articles and an editorial claiming to have unearthed “new” truths about “Chappies”, most of which were seriously inaccurate.

The current furore around “Chappies” and the toll plaza is even more remarkable in that nothing is being done that was not known about before and which was not subject to the most extensive public participation yet visited on any provincial project.

These revelations based themselves to a disappointing degree on hearsay, exaggerations and inaccuracies. Let me reassure your readers on three points:

 1. The Cape Times headline: “Toll road company to build R54m luxury office block on Chapman’s Peak Drive .”

The clear impression conveyed – and certainly understood by the public – is of a great office rearing up the side of the mountain. This is incorrect. The Cape Times describes the plaza as luxurious and massive. This also is incorrect. Contrary to the report, there will be only 20 people working on the tolls and in the office at any given time – and not 60.

The alleged “office block” is a two-storey building, each floor 200m in extent.

 It is designed not to be intrusive, and, by way of example, it would not be visible from Hout Bay harbour.

The cost of the toll booths and the “office” building is about R13m. This includes strongrooms and a waste water plant. Other costs include the roadways (R10m); landscaping (R1m); electronic equipment (R6m); electricity and lighting (R2.5m). It will have offices, control rooms and a meeting room.

The total cost is capped at R54m, but is likely to be less.

The province’s share of the cost will be recovered in full over time. The attractive and environmentally appropriate new toll plaza will be built into the unsightly quarry on the mountain, and will mitigate what is the ugliest feature on the mountain.

Construction is not happening at the expense of pristine fynbos, or any other protected fauna.

 2. The Cape Times headline: “Upper storey of block designed for parties, say residents.” This is also not true. The Cape Times gives its source as Len Swimmer of the Hout Bay Residents Association. At a meeting of his association to which he invited me last year, and at which three of his members were present, he made a similar allegation. When I asked for his source, he told me that “somebody” had told him.

 3. “Free day pass to Chappies to be scrapped.”

While there is, and always has been, a provision in the contract for all vehicles passing through the toll gates to be charged, there has been an informal agreement that bona fide picnickers and hikers would not be charged on the Hout Bay side until the completion of the plaza.

In 2008 the then-ANC MEC agreed in terms of the Record of Decision to discontinue the day pass system. This provision has not been implemented.

Clauses 16.1 to 16.4 of the contract govern the future of day passes. They will continue to be issued unhindered for at least the next year.

The new plaza is sited more than a kilometre higher up the mountain, and many picnic sites and hiking routes will fall outside the toll section.

I am not in favour of the removal of day passes, which can be implemented only with my concurrence.

Informal negotiations have started with the toll company to find a solution in the best interests of all stakeholders, and particularly the people of Cape Town , to whom the mountains belong.

While most of the plaza, about 75 percent, will be built on provincial land, a small piece of Table Mountain Park land – nearly all of it a quarry – will also be used.

The legality of the approval to construct on the portion of SANParks land is being challenged, and is best left to the courts.

However, the comparison with the small piece of land excised for the Hospital Bend-N2 upgrade is entirely fallacious.

That land was owned by the Cecil John Rhodes Estate, which is governed by its own and entirely different act of Parliament.

Few projects have been subjected to the extent and intensity of public participation that scrutinised the toll plaza.

Commencing in 2003, the environmental impact assessment triggered widespread participation, in which Mr Swimmer and his association were fully involved.

The national minister of environmental affairs enforced a second round of public participation in 2005, in which Mr Swimmer and his association were again fully involved. Finally, there was an appeal process that allowed for further input from interested and affected parties.

At the time, the Cape Times reported on all these processes.

Interestingly, the Hout Bay association, which now expresses such outrage about the plaza, did not object to the Record of Decision in its favour in 2005.

Despite this, your editorial yesterday repeats most of the inaccuracies of its earlier articles, and goes on to say “there was no public announcement about the move”.

Outrage is a very overworked word in journalistic terms, so let me confine myself to expressing disappointment that the Cape Times should make such an obviously inaccurate statement.

Like most Capetonians, I would never have wanted a Chappies toll, catch nets and underpasses.

However, once the upper cliffs were tampered with and after the uncontrolled alien flora was burnt off some 10 years ago, the pass became significantly more dangerous. This necessitated the current protective measures.

This was the legacy of administrations.

There is now no possibility that the huge costs of maintaining the safety of the pass can be met without tolling.

“Chappies” is, by a wide margin, the most expensive road in the province

Despite all the measures we have introduced, two thirds of the pass rests on soft and eroding Cape sandstone, which makes Chappies the most vulnerable of our provincial treasures.

Setting aside fairy stories about luxury and parties, the vexed issue is whether the office area of the plaza could have been sited elsewhere. From an efficiency point of view this is undesirable.

Toll offices are usually positioned close to a major toll gate, as at Huguenot.

The plaza and gates are designed for minimal visual impact, and also to obscure the quarry.

More important, the plaza is the product of a very detailed Record of Decision, and subject to a complex private-public partnership contract. To undo it now exposes the risk of unravelling everything that has been achieved and regressing to the bad old days of conflict between the partners, more frequent closure of the pass, and significant new expense to the taxpayer.

This administration has met its promise of reopening Chappies and renegotiating a more favourable contract, saving the taxpayer more than R84m in the process.

The Cape Times ambush of yesterday and today reminded me that few good deeds go unpunished.

Robin Carlisle

Carlisle is transport MEC for the Western Cape .

[Lisbeth]

Sorry, not good enough.

The major question from all concerned parties is how a piece of a National Park can be excised at will, and what precedent it will create. Also who in Sanparks was reimbursed for this privilege.

Passing the buck is nonsense. If you inherited it from the previous government, you should make darned sure you are doing it properly this time, and ALERT THE MEDIA fully to prevent speculation.

The Kruger Malelane hotel is also being built in a quarry, and also as a response to the previous government's misdeeds.

100% RP I could care less about the toll road, what the building looks like, the fact that the land is nearly all quarry etc, my problem is who gave Mabunda the authority to sell off parts of my heritage. And by the way Mr Carlisle, a fact you should know as being in government although only provincial, Table Mountain belongs to every South African, not just the people of Cape Town, it is a World heritage site and a National Park.
It seems that when Mr Carlisle refers to public participation he is referring to discussions around the building of the toll offices and/or the toll road. What I want to know is, what public participation was there in the signing off of National Park land, even if most of it is quarry.

It is pretty evident by Carlisle's response that this is all part of a convoluted agreement to change the former agreement with the toll company i.e. give us some SanParks land so we can go and offer the toll company a new building and they will agree to change the contract. So the all the citizens of South Africa get screwed to help the Western Province government out of bad agreement.
It's just not on. Who the heck does Mabunda think he is.

Table Mountain belongs to every South African, not just the people of Cape Town, it is a World heritage site and a National Park.

Those are obviously the qualifying factors....look at Mapungubwe and Kruger!!!

Shi, as far as the Cape Provincial govt is concerned, they have done the full exercise and have got their proposal signed off by the necessary dept, however it seems that the little exercise of the piece of National Parks land which Dr Mabunda has signed over may not have gone through the correct procedures. We have a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment & Water Affairs looking into it, so there is still hope.
It seems to me that the whole exercise of providing land and allowing the toll company to put up a building at that spot is all part of a complicated political move for the WC provincial government to get out of a sticky contract, so the 'good 'ol boys may still decide to scrub each others' backs, in which case it will not be stopped. Africa Wild has put the cat amongst the pigeons for now, and we can only hope for the best.

What kind of business, apart from the Chapman's Peak road, does this company, Entilini, cope with?

Lis, I'm not sure, but their biggest shareholder is a company by the name of Murray & Roberts who are a huge construction/road building company here in SA, but they do run contracts all over the world.

iNd, Lis and Fluts, believe it or not, when I read about the rhinos I got teary-eyed. We've seen so many, and in the region where the carcasses were found. And we were in that region for the past five days. :( :( We were so admiring these wonderful, 'armoured' animals. Their horns. Their agility (we saw to black rhinos too - and boy, are they fast if they want to be!). Maybe one or two or five of them were part of the killing spree? Clearly the rhinos are not 'armoured' enough to stop this onslaught. Clearly SA/SANParks is not 'armoured' enough to stop this onslaught. So when will we be? When it is hopelessly too late???


Apart from being very, very mad and very, very sick-sick, I feel kind of helpless. And I dislike it intensely to feel this way. (Fluts, that video of yours is a-m-a-z-i-n-g and made me and the LO cry. Will ask Theuns to look at it when he wakes up). Clearly donating money is not stopping the rhino poaching. Clearly merely talking/moaning about SANParks doing 'wild and weird' things is not stopping that either.

Quo vadis?

I see they are going to march in Cape Town...

I just received this email, forwarded by Gerhard Smit...

Hello and Happy New Year to you all!

SANParks are de-proclaiming a ‘worthless’ piece of the Table Mountain National Park for a private company to build offices. This is very bad news for the future of our National Park estate.

There is a protest march being held against this and the decision to stop the free day pass which allowed us to access ‘half’ of the drive for free, on Sunday the 22nd of January from 10am from both sides of Chapman’s Peak.

If you’re free, pack a picnic and come. Please tell as many of your friends, family, neighbours and anyone you can think of to come along.

SANParks, and the DA now, are showing that they can do whatever they want. This is an opportunity to show them they can’t do as they please and that they in fact work for us the public and should be acting in our best interest.

Andrew Wardle

This from Cape Argus ...note that the land has NOT been deproclaimed, suddenly, but is "in process"...suddenly, so NOT yet all above board, suddenly...


Plans for Chappies toll building resumes
January 16 2012 at 01:19pm
By John Yeld




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Parliament is being asked to deproclaim part of the Table Mountain National Park for a new Chapman’s Peak Drive toll plaza.

This has been confirmed by SA National Parks (SANParks), which argues that the 2 100m2 in question – most of it part of a former quarry – has no biodiversity value.

But by late last week this news had not yet been confirmed to lawyers acting for Hout Bay residents who are strongly opposing plans for the building.

The lawyers, Cullinan & Associates, have been pressing SANParks on this issue since last year, saying that the apparent transfer of the land from the park to the province without deproclamation was illegal, as land falling within any national park could only be used for conservation purposes.

They were told on December 12 that issues raised by them in correspondence were still being looked at.

“The key people that are involved in the matter are already on leave (out of the country) until mid-January 2012. We will only be in a position to revert to you soon thereafter,” Sibusiso Nyembe, the general manager for legal services, said in a letter to them.

“It would be appreciated if you could kindly pend your file until January 31.”

But last week SANParks chief executive David Mabunda confirmed to the Cape Times, sister newspaper to the Cape Argus, that moves to deproclaim the land in question were under way.

Wanda Mkutshulwa, the head of communication at SANParks, told the Cape Argus that Parliament would be asked to approve the deproclamation of the land, in line with the legal requirements of the National Environment Management: Protected Areas Act.

“Deproclamation is indeed a parliamentary process, and so the Department of Environmental Affairs is preparing the necessary documentation for the proclamation to be attended to by Parliament.”

Although the public participation process for the tolling project had been concluded when then environment minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk issued a revised record of decision for the project in June 2008, it was possible for Parliament to allow the public to have a further say, Mkutshulwa added.

“It must be noted that, should Parliament feel the need for another public participation (process), it is within its rights to call for ‘round two’.”

She did not give any indication of when the proposed deproclamation would come before Parliament.

In his revised record of decision, which was issued after appeals against his department’s initial approval of the project, Van Schalkwyk said he was satisfied that concerns raised by objectors about, among other things, damage to natural vegetation, light pollution, traffic noise, traffic fumes and visual impact had been “adequately addressed”.

He also dismissed objections on the grounds that tourism would suffer and that access to picnic sites and hiking trails would be “unduly restricted and that access would not be possible”.

“(I) support the view that safe, organised thoroughfare will encourage visitors and in all probability enhance and promote tourism in the area,” he stated.

One of the conditions of Van Schalkwyk’s approval was that the environmental monitoring committee that had been set up to check the road reconstruction project in the early 2000s be reconstituted and its membership approved by the province.

The committee’s membership included the province, city council, SANParks, SA Heritage Resources Agency, the concessionaire (then named Entabeni), residents’ association and several conservation groups.

Len Swimmer, the chairman of the Residents’ Association of Hout Bay, confirmed on Friday that he had received “very short notice” the previous day inviting him to a meeting of the reconstituted committee this week.

What really concerns me is that the two very separate issues are being confused. The building construction on the one hand, which is a big issue with the Hout Bay residents and encompasses all the concerns of access and free hikes etc and then the main issue for me... the handing over or deproclaiming of the SanParks land. The media reports we are seeing all seem to lump the 2 issues together and I fear that by doing so the public gets a confused message.

I see above that there is a chance that parliament may call for public participation in the deproclaming issue. What is this "may" story. Something as important as dumping pieces of our heritage absolutely needs public participation. Mabunda once again is trying to ease things through under the table, what part of 'you, because of the position you hold are a public servant Dr' does he not understand. In my opinion he shows a toffee to the people he is supposed to serve by way of his underhanded actions and definitely must be relieved of his 'office'.

Well, rhetoric would suggest the Dr is trying his best to get out of these messes and into higher office. Don't know who next in line is...

"Jou Ma se Office Block" and many more info here: http://gctca.org.za/

As well as a petition to sign here: http://gctca.org.za/have-your-say-by-si ... eak-drive/

[Lisbeth]

Posted on Sanparks forum today:

Helen Zille on the Chapman's Peak toll

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicswe ... &pid=71616

FRONT PAGE
FEATURES
NEWS
COMMENT
RESOURCES
SUBSCRIBE
home
RESOURCES
PARTY
DOCUMENTS


Home > Politicsweb > RESOURCES > DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENTS
Helen Zille on the Chapman's Peak toll
Helen Zille
30 January 2012

Reply by the WCape Premier to the memorandum from the Civil Rights Action Group

RESPONSE TO THE CRAG MEMORANDUM

The memorandum handed over to Robin Carlisle, MEC for Transport and Public Works, by the Civil Rights Action Group (CRAG), on Sunday 22nd January 2012, regarding the Chapman's Peak Drive control centre refers.

This administration welcomes the input of civil society into all matters of public concern, and encourages a wide spectrum of opinion, and the CRAG memorandum raises a comprehensive number of concerns voiced by various sectors of the public over the Chapman's Peak Drive control centre. I will thus answer the points raised by the memorandum in turn. I hope that in doing so, I will also clear up several misconceptions that have arisen over the centre.

In addition, an information brochure about Chapman's Peak Drive is available at http://www.westerncape.gov.za. Click the link on the home page.

Old (current):

New (planned):

Old vs New. The approach to the current eyesore stack of disused shipping containers, and an artist's impression of the approach to the new control centre, which is built from natural materials, recessed in a disused quarry and landscaped, including roof planters, to blend with its surroundings.

CRAG: "CPD as a free standing toll road enterprise is not viable."

1. The financial commitment has been made on the basis of a 30 year contract, and while high upfront costs were anticipated, the profitability of the operation will become apparent over the longer term. The concessionaire has made considerable investment and is committed to the long term sustainability of Chapman's Peak Drive.

2. It is noteworthy that the administrative processing of objections and the consequential delays to the project do not come without a price and this cost is ultimately borne by the public via the Provincial coffers. The costs to the public resulting from the on-going environmental objection process for Chapman's Peak Drive includes delays to the initial contract and takeover of responsibility by the concessionaire, the commissioning of an Environmental Impact Assessment and the two subsequent Records of Decision in favour of building the tolling facility including an control centre are currently estimated to be as much as R100M.

"The Western Cape Toll Roads Act, 1999 governs only one toll road and that is Chapman's Peak Drive. The act empowers the Minister (Robin Carlisle) to withdraw the notice which originally declared CPD to be a toll road by simply placing another notice in the Provincial Gazette to that effect. A stroke of the pen and it's gone."

1. It is important to note that Chapman's Peak comprises 9 kms of road (out of 38,000 kms) under the control of the Province. It is also by far the most expensive road and the rehabilitation cost after the rockfalls of 2000, cost an amount equivalent to 10% of the province's total roads budget (adjusted for inflation.)

2. At present the users of Chapman's Peak Drive pay for the monitoring of the pass and the maintenance and upkeep of the rock fall protection measures, parking, picnic, lookout points and toilet facilities. Transferring that responsibility back onto all the taxpayers, most of whom will never see or use the pass, is not a fair or viable option.

3. The Roads Engineers of the Department of Transport and Public Works estimate that the current roads budget is approximately R1-billion short of what is required to maintain and provide necessary upgrades to the Province's 38,000km of roads to ensure that there is a good standard.

4. Simply put, without tolling the 9 kms pass, it cannot remain open. Alternative routes are available as has been demonstrated by four years of closure since 2000.

5. The Province nevertheless remains committed to keeping Chapman's Peak Drive open as a strategic transport route and a scenic, heritage and environmental asset.

6. No deaths or serious injuries have been reported on CPD due to rock fall since the opening of the pass as a toll road with its upgraded safety measures some eight years ago, in comparison with five deaths in the twelve years preceding its closure in 2000.

7. Thus the high cost and maintenance of this road necessitates that the CPD remain a toll road.

"Many years of operating prove what little infrastructure is necessary. The proponents of the toll plaza/office block have not shown why more infrastructure is required than is presently there."

1. The temporary facilities are a stack of shipping containers with reinforced high security windows, two port-a-loos, a wendy house and four fibreglass toll booths in addition to a separate maintenance and storage yard at the currently proposed tolling site. Not only are these facilities an eyesore, but they are completely inadequate to the task of managing Chapman's Peak Drive and the tolling operation, and entirely inappropriate for a world class tourist destination or a station from which disaster management could occur.

2. The current facilities were designed for use for approximately one year. Chapman's Peak Drive experiences extreme weather conditions throughout the year, including heat waves, extreme wind, cold, storms and heavy rain. It is not acceptable that the people who keep Chapman's Peak Drive safe, who pick up after the picknickers and tourists, who clean the toilets and who maintain the facilities should be expected to endure these conditions any longer. The operating company has experienced an excessive turnover of around 200 members of staff over the last eight years, with many citing poor conditions of employment as the reason for their resignation. This is despite the vast majority of the 57 employees coming from communities like Imizamo Yethu and Hangberg where unemployment and poverty are at very high levels.

3. The safety requirements of users of the drive have been met by permanent constructions on SANParks land in the form of safety features. The safety of the staff deserves as much consideration, especially as there have been three robberies at the temporary facility. A female staff member was badly hurt during a robbery in June 2010. Visitors also enjoy fixed toilet construction, while staff have used port-a-loos for eight years.

4. The current arrangement means additional costs for office space in Hout Bay, and inefficiencies whereby management are forced to move to the Hout Bay offices every time any kind of meeting or training is required.

5. Surveillance of the toll booths is ineffective for the purpose required if it happens at a significant distance away.

"CPD is within Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) on land owned by SANParks which has the highest level of environmental protection possible."

1. Chapman's Peak Drive is located within the former Cape Peninsula National Park, now TMNP, but is not a natural landscape feature. It remains a road which has to be managed and controlled by the Province. By way of a management agreement, the operating company also has access to other permanent construction features on SANParks land, such as catch nets. This is in order to keep the road safe and prevent further death and serious injury. Other permanent constructions on SANParks land include toilets for the convenience of visitors.

2. Far from setting a precedent with regard to commercial use of SANParks' land, as has been claimed elsewhere, the control centre will be located opposite a luxury hotel on SANParks' land overlooking Kooëlbaai, (one of many such operations throughout South Africa.)

"The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process did not include public participation on the plans to build within TMNP."

1. The EIA considered all three possible locations for the control centre, which were all within what is now TMNP. Concept plans and elevations for each site were included in the EIA documents and the site development plans were approved in accordance with the environmental authorisation granted these plans were subjected to two rounds of public participation between 2003 and 2008.

2. The land earmarked for the Centre was originally under provincial control. This land was part of the 510,000m² (51Ha) of the Farm, Helsingden, which was sold to SANParks by the Province in 2003 for R100. This sale included a further eleven erven totalling 9,390,000m² of Provincial land, for a total price of R1200. Transfer of the property did not take place until 2006. The Province is therefore utilising less than 0.022% of the land it transferred to SANParks in 2006 for purposes of constructing the Chapman's Peak Drive control centre.