“The City of Cape Town will embark on yet another public participation process over the controversial R830-million sale and lease of property in Clifton”
The ACDP raises these concerns…again…because they remain relevant and the DA City government is determined to ignore them:
- The ACDP agrees with public comments relating to the negative environmental, social and economic impact that increased traffic would cause.
- The Traffic Impact Assessment remains outstanding yet the report is silent on this.
- Congestion in this area in peak season is now likely to cause gridlock and will have negative economic impacts.
- Sewerage Treatment:
- Millions of litres of raw sewerage is already pumped into this portion of the Atlantic sea and there is no alternative proposed for this project – meaning many more millions of litres of raw sewerage will be pumped into the sea here.
- This means that the already-high e-coli count will only increase to unsustainable levels and increase the threat to marine life, make the beach and water unsafe for humans and, in turn, threaten both the local economy and the Blue Flag status of Camps Bay beach and Clifton 4th beach – two huge tourist attractions and a source of pride for the City.
- The 1948 proclamation that this area is a national monument remains and is legally binding – even the Citys own officials admit this – this proclamation forbids such a development. DA ignores this
- The SA Heritage Resource Agency has declared this area a Provincial Heritage Site – also disallowing this development proposal. DA ignores this too.
- No botanical survey has been done and there remains likely non-compliance with the City’s Scenic Drive policy and the City’s Coastal Edge policy.
- The ACDP notes that only now, in this the 3rd report to council, has MATR regulation 5.3(b) finally been complied with. This regulation requires that “A request to the municipal council for authorisation of a public participation process (May and January items) must be accompanied by information stating the valuation of the capital asset to be transferred or disposed of and the method of valuation used to determine that valuation.
This report (pg 424-426) confirms the ACDP’s point made in Jan and May 2015 – and concedes that this proposal should only now go out for public participation.
The Mayors answer to my question this morning does not undo the procedural fault – and MATR cannot be complied with after the fact. Today, council is also not being asked to condone this breach of MATR
For these reasons, the ACDP votes against the proposal