Pinelands Ratepayers
& Residents Association

» Ratepayers & Residents Association
» Councillor's Report
» Pinelands Neighbourhood Watch
» CID / Special Rating Area
Notices


Pinelands Ratepayers and Residents Association (PRRA) General Meeting
7 June 2017 at 7:30pm

Join the Pinelands Ratepayers and Residents association for the General
Meeting at 7:30pm in the Pinelands Library Hall. Old Mutual will provide information on the proposed Mupine Development on the Mupine Golf Course. Email Carol pinelands.ratepayers@gmail.com.


Pinelands Ratepayers and Residents Association (PRRA) Mailing List

I am trying to update the PRRA mailing list as about 90 emails get returned “undeliverable” when I send out a notice. This is an appeal to members of the PRRA who have changed their email address over the past few years, to please send their new email addresses to Carol at pinelands.ratepayers@gmail.com.
If you would like to join the PRRA and be added to the mailing list, please email Carol to request a membership form.


THE CHANGING FACE OF PINELANDS
A look at the 2011 and
previous census figures
Saturday 2 November 2013
See notes from the presentation HERE

Join the Association

Pinelands Ratepayers' and Residents' Association exists to look after the interests of Pinelanders. Membership is R30 per annum or, a very special offer, R100 for 4 years.

Download an Application Form
or mail your contact details to the Association
together with payment.

Documents
Membership Application Form
Archives
2010 2009
Contacts
Tel • 021 531 5044
PO Box 15, Howard Place, 7450
pinelands.ratepayers@gmail.com
www.pinelandsdirectory.co.za/prra.php
Chairman: John Berry
johnberry1@telkomsa.net
Vice Chairman:Riad Davids
riad@worldonline.co.za
Secretary: Carol Clark
pinelands.ratepayers@gmail.com
Treasurer: Abdulnasir Adam
adam5294@gmail.com
Roads and Traffic: Rene Brooks
tar@cdltrading.co.za
Exco Member: Roger White
rogerw@intekom.co.za
Cllr: Brian Watkyns
while not a member of the Exco does attend meetings.
bwatkyns@icon.co.za
Objectives of the Association

To ensure that the Local Government Structures responsible for the administration of Pinelands, function efficiently and effectively in the interests of Pinelands and its residents.

To stimulate public interest in Local Government and community affairs and to create pride of citizenship.
To advance and safeguard the interest of Pinelands and its residents generally and to preserve and promote its traditions, values, ethics and ideals.
To maintain and, where necessary, improve service and aesthetic standards.
To discuss and deal with any subject of public interest with the Association maintaining a non-party political and neutral religious position.
To co-operate with any other organisation having similar objectives.

Mupine Golf Course Development

CLOSING DATE FOR OBJECTIONS: 12 JUNE 2017.

 

Background information on the proposed Mupine development. CLICK HERE

Objection letter for Pinelanders to use. CLICK HERE


Conradie Better Living Model

Focus Group Meeting - Community Representatives 8 May 2017. CLICK HERE

Amended Conradie Rezoning Application May 2017. CLICK HERE

Letter from PRRA to Pinelands Residents regarding Conradie objection. CLICK HERE

Objection Letter for Pinelands Residents for Conradie development. CLICK HERE


Proposed deletion of restrictive title deed conditions, approval of council and departures in terms of the City of Cape Town municipal planning bylaw in respect of erf 580, 24 Forest Drive

Read the application HERE

Objections to the application for 24 Forest Drive close on 9 December 2016.


LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS

There are currently two Liquor Licence Applications in the area:.

  1. LL1610017: Yes We Can Sport and Jazz Foundation
  2. LL1610018: Pinelands Athletics Club

Interested parties can send their comments on the applications.
Comment for the SAPS aspect/report closes on 25 November 2016.

Send your form to:
Subcouncil 15 at Subcouncil.15@capetown.gov.za
Please cc W/O Freddie Troost at Pinelands SAPS at PinelandsSAPS@saps.gov.za

Use the following subject titles for each message:
Public Participation : LLA1610017 Liquor Licence Application : Require your feedback
Public Participation : LLA1610018 Liquor Licence Application : Require your feedback

To complete the comment form, open it and click “enable editing”
Links to the Applications, Notifications and Comment Forms are given below.

  1. LL1610017: Yes We Can Sport and Jazz Foundation
    APPLICATION
    COMMENT FORM
    NOTIFICATION

  2. LL1610018: Pinelands Athletics Club
    APPLICATION
    COMMENT FORM
    NOTIFICATION

DEVELOPMENTS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO PINELANDS

There are currently three sections of land that are undergoing Public Participation Process for planned redevelopment . The aims are to have mixed use, high density mixed income residential aspects and “Transport Orientated Development”. This aims to make use of the planned Integrated Rapid Transit (IRT) system and non-motorised transport potential:.

  1. The Two Rivers Urban Park (TRU-Park)
  2. The Conradie Better Living Model Exampler Project (BLMEP)
    Read the Conradie BLM Focus Group Presentation of 23 June 2016 HERE
  3. Conradie Development: Planning application for the proposed deletion of restrictive title condition, rezoning, subdivision, consolidation, departures and closure of public place. Closing date for comment is 15 November 2016. Read the document HERE
  4. The Athlone Power Station
    Read the Athlone Power Station Bid V2 HERE

City of Cape Town’s Home Composting Programme

The City of Cape Town has embarked on an innovative home composting programme to divert as much household organic waste from landfills as possible. You can get involved by applying for a home composting container, thereby also enhancing your soil condition and making your own compost.

You can email your signed application form to wastewise@capetown.gov.za or return it to Subcouncil 15, St Stephens Road, Central Square, Pinelands. REMEMBER to attach a certified copy of your ID.

Get an application form with more details HERE

If you are still unsure kindly contact Dowayne.Koopman@capetown.gov.za on 021 444 9797.


PUBLIC NOTICE: HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
CONRADIE "BETTER LIVING MODEL" EXEMPLAR PROJECT

Heritage Western Cape Case No: 14102807AS1029E

Notice is hereby given of a Heritage Impact assessment in terms of: National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999.

  • The site: Unregistered Erf 169125 of Rem 112657, Forest Drive Extension, Thornton
  • Proponent: Western Cape Government ("WCG"): Department of Transport & Public
    Works ("DTPW")
  • The development: The WCG introduces the Better Living Model Exemplar Project ("BLMEP"). This business 'UNusual' opportunity, is the development of an integrated, sustainable and affordable residentially-led, mixed use neighbourhood on the 22ha site owned by the WCG. The site is the location of the former Conradie Hospital in Cape Town, situated between Thornton and Pinelands in the Western Cape.

The Better Living Model ("BLM") is a joint Game Changer initiative between the WCG and the City of Cape Town who, together with the private sector, will work together to secure funding for bulk services and infrastructure, housing products, public amenities and commercial opportunities. The residential component of the BLM will consist of affordable rental, rent-to-own and fully-owned apartments. It is the objective that a minimum of forty-nine percent of these should be subsidized. The remainder of the development will include retail, commercial and service industry. This will be a place where people can Live, Work, Play and learn, within a connected, safe and socially inclusive environment.

The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
Four heritage-graded structures (the Gateway Precinct) on the site will remain; the Hall (also referred to as Chapel), the old Nurses Administration building, the Porter's Lodge and the entrance gateways and boundary wall on Forest Drive Extension.The HIA studies the potential impact of the Conradie BLMEP development on these structures and other heritage resources within the immediate environs.

Notice is hereby given that a draft HIA will be available for review and comment from Monday 11 April 2016 to Tuesday 10 May 2016.

CLICK HERE to read the Conradie BLMEP Draft HIA for public participation.

Copies of the draft HIA will be available at the municipal offices and libraries in Pinelands and Thornton. Copies of the draft HIA will also be available on request at betterlivingmodel@westerncape.gov.za or can be downloaded from the WCG website.

If you or your organisation would like to register as an interested and affected party (I&AP) please email betterlivingmodel@westerncape.gov.za. In addition, any I&APs who would like to submit a comment on the HIA should do so in writing to betterlivingmodel@westerncape.gov.za no later than 17h00 on 10 May 2016.Queries may be directed to the HIA practitioner: Urban Design Services cc, Andre Pentz at urbands@iafrica.com


LIQUOR LICENCE APPLICATION
FOR CLYDE PINELANDS

Read the Letter from the PRRA HERE
Read the Liquor Licence Application HERE
Read the SAPS Notification HERE
Get a Liquor Licence Comment Form HERE


AGM OF THE PRRA
Wednesday 22 October 2015

Read the Minutes HERE


GENERAL MEETING OF THE PRRA
Wednesday 18 MARCH 2015

Read the Minutes HERE


AGM OF THE PRRA
Wednesday 22 OCTOBER 2014

Read the Minutes HERE


GENERAL MEETING OF THE PRRA
11 June 2014


Pinewatch and Pinelands Neighbourhood Watch were invited to talk. The full Hall indicated it was a topic of interest and controversy. For the benefit of those residents who didn’t attend, this is a detailed record of the talks and concerns and questions raised by residents.

PINELANDS CAMERA PROJECT: PATRICK PILLAY of PINEWATCH

They are aware the PNW wants to deploy cameras.
They have visited Goodwood, Welgemoed, UCT and UWC Control rooms. This is their second camera project, the first is in Loewenstein. CCTV converges LPR (licence plate recognition), urban surveillance and vehicle patrols to make neighbourhoods safer. LPR cameras identify number plates, record and keep or cross check against a database for flagged vehicles. LPR can read in shade or at night. Urban surveillance monitors a public area with strategic located CCTV, monitored by 24 hour control room and assisted by patrolling vehicles. He showed 4 video clips of how cameras had picked up various incidents of theft and an assault.

Pinelands Street Camera Project PSCP:
They have been planning it for 7-8 months. They plan 4 phases, but it depends on the support.
If they complete Phase 1 then they have achieved something. Phases 2-3-4 would be nice to have. 1: LPR with live monitoring
2: Other strategic locations for overview cameras
3: PTZ camera
4: included University Drive
They have done it before especially with wifi networks and can make a camera installation successful. They have put up prototypes demo models in Morningside. Technician finalise the settings. It has a control box for maintenance flexibility. They have the infrastructure in place and four operators on duty in their Control Room which exceeds Control Room requirements..

So far, to show their commitment, they have put in R 119 800 in the form of demo CCTV at 2 sites (2 LPR and overview camera at Morningside and PTZ camera at Sunrise), two phases of their brochure and a base radio for PNW. They have admin staff to collect the money, sales staff to secure camera sites and control room staff. Once the cameras are up and running , the annual staff and operating costs would be R660 000. The estimated cost to Pinewatch (PW) for the project for 3 years is R2.15 million, and about R60 000 per month. The cost per camera is less than other neighbourhoods as they are subsidising a lot of the labour costs.

Partnerships are key to raising funds. They sent brochures to PW customers first as they had their information on record and can call them. They will use the July Muse (reaches about 4000 households) to send out their brochure and a letter. They should have done this the other way around and used the Muse first. The cost per household of R1480 is a reference point based on a 65% positive response of other Neighbourhood Watches - initially to be paid over 6 months but now they changed it to 8 months. The bigger the buy in, the less the contribution per household. It could be an administrative nightmare but they had to start somewhere. The “illegal letter” was a gamble to get people’s attention and stir interest. They expect a percentage of PW customers not to support it and this was a quick way to find out who. Sending the letter out wasn’t illegal – acting on it is. They need to call their customers to find out if they give a “yes/no” to contributing.

If they don’t get the support, PSCP has its own bank account and they will return the money if need be. It was based on 65% of PW customers not households in Pinelands. If the support is greater, then they can perhaps decrease the contribution or increase the number of cameras e.g. put one in Nursery Way. The idea was initially for 64 cameras but it was over R3 million. Another idea is a potential wireless/Eskom free emergency pole for the canal.

Their plan is to transfer the physical assets to PPRA after 3 years but this hasn’t been sorted out yet. Pinewatch would still provide the service. Why 36 months? because they can’t predict the political climate in the security industry. They commit to 36 months and can then review it -to gauge costs and what the project is doing for the community. After 36 months, what will it cost people? R185/year. Some suburbs pay R165 per month. Maintenance after 36 months? Axis cameras have a 8-10 lifespan and a 5 year warranty.

Privacy: In modern society privacy is a fallacy – City of Cape Town has 800 cameras, there are about 230 private cameras in public spaces, and some garages and shopping centres have cameras. Residents who have concerns can come and see the field of view. PW can mask it and resident can sign it off.
PW support PNW: it was the intention to have a satellite viewing station at Howard Centre Motors but there are still issues to iron out

Questions and comments from the public:

Q: Rene Brooks: if I’m ok to put money in but the cameras are nowhere near my property, what benefit is there for me?

A: We selected strategic locations for vehicle and foot areas for securing the whole neighbourhood but those nearer the cameras would benefit more.

Helen: Article in Cape Times states that privately owned CCTV on public property have to be registered.

A: none of the cameras would be on public places they would be on private property. The top and bottom of Forest Drive will be a challenge as private property is too far off.

Graham Childcott: Pressure is on both ends of Pinelands and Clyde area can’t be closed off. What about the area between the N2 and the golf course? It will funnel walkers with bad intentions. A: Need to take that into consideration and may need to look at thermal cameras there

Robert Wineals: Have Old Mutual, Pick and Pay and Woolworths been approached? It will be a benefit to them as Pinelands will be safer. A: We will discuss with OM after a month’s test regarding use of their building; Howard Motors have donated R10 000; we use Garden City Height at no charge

Steven Oslo: Could this not be run as a CID and a fee added to every ratepayers?

Brian Watkyns: Tried 12 years ago to get a CID going and PPRA got 70% response. The City Administration changed. Recently when they tried again, the PPRA only got about 10% responses. Time factor is an issue as a CID can take 3 years to form. Riad: Easier in a business area with just a few businesses than a residential area that needs more than 50% response.
Resident: perhaps a CID could take over the Camera Project after 3 years?
Thomas Blatherwick: We run Maitland, Glosderry, Stickland and have just been appointed the Salt River CID. Residential ones are harder to get going. Contributions are based on cent:rand of your property value. It doesn’t substitute for your service provider. CIDs take about a year to establish. They run for a 5 years process and then you have to reapply again.

Laura : I was part of the group who got the 70% response so why only 10% response now – need better marketing? Why have ADT and Chubb not been brought in? A: Pinewatch has 50% of clients in Pinelands and 5 cars and it is the biggest. The more clients we can get on board the better and the more vehicles we can put out.

Sybil May Jones: What cameras will there be near Clyde? A: In Phase 1 Clyde gets 4 static cameras and 1 PTZ for foot traffic. We are looking at putting a thermal camera there.

Linda MacIntosh: What about the Jan Smuts area? No cameras there and it is an area that the Police and PNW patrol often. A: if we get more support we can put cameras there.
Pat Leonard: Will there be communication with SAPS when LPR flagged vehicles enter the area?

A: not automatically, the response will have to be from our Call Centre to them

Q: Are you locking into the Greater Cape Town Camera System?
A: not at this point in time. Privacy issue. We are investigating the databases, they could be interchangeable. If they are on the same platform then we can do that. Ours will be compatible with the CCT.

Ian Jones: What is your communication to PNW when you pick up suspects? You say that Pinewatch is paying for this. It’s not - the Pinewatch customers are paying for it. What happens after 3 years? Will there be another brochure and another request for R1500?
A: we have committed to R185 per year.

Resident: On the network, we don’t hear PW respond when PNW patrols call in.

Lucille Kraak: What about pensioners who can’t afford to pay – will there be a rebate for pensioners?

A: We hadn’t thought of that

Theresa: Take a walk with Adam from PNW and he can show you the weaknesses near Jan Smuts area.

A: It’s an oversight, and we will relook that

Herbert Burger: Puts a motion forward that we need to start somewhere and is prepared to help pay

Wendy: I live near Field Close. Camera placing should be relooked at. Also an alternative motion that more people support PNW and buy radios as its helping. Criminals get dropped off and often come in on foot and cameras won’t help that. A: that area was an oversight

Jim McNamara: I am impressed; it’s good to keep the Canal safe and can also look at using some dummy cameras – some benefit?

Robert Winearls: Cant we put an article into local newspapers about the Camera Project so people outside Pinelands know about it – may also help as deterrent

Manfred van Oudstoorn: Do you have PNW full commitment and backing?
A: no answer

PINELANDS NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH: Peter Hoffman
PNW has grown significantly in the last 4 months and now has 573 members – a 242 increase since April 2014. We now have WhatsAp groups, more radios (have 100 out in circulation) and sector leaders. For me the biggest success is that if you look at the crime pattern, the night time pattern due to the patrols and radios has shifted to dayshift and a large portion of it has shifted to Thornton. Thanks to all the hardworking patrollers and Sector leaders. We recently had 56 patrollers handing out leaflets about crime tips to the high risk area..

The bulk of Camera projects are run, owned and managed by Neighbourhood Watches and CIDs . Very few are managed or co-ordinated by private security companies.
PNW informed residents about their idea for LPM camera. Last year it was to scope the proposal and this year to implement it. We put it on the website 8-10 months ago saying this is what Pinelands needs as it will reduce crime.
It needs an independent body such as a NW, a CID or PRRA to co-ordinate manage and fund it. Rondebosch appointed a security company to monitor it. The Community can raise the funds.
Business can play a big role in funding. PNW would rather see PPRA , or PNW or a CID own it, fund it, scope it with greater input from the community. Once that’s in place, we can get businesses involved. Pinewatch can tender for what they are proposing. The advantage is that the community has a greater level of control over it.
A lazy PWN approach would be to stand back and let Pinewatch do it but we are nervous. We think it would be best owned managed and controlled by the community. To reiterate the bulk of camera projects are owned by CID and NW.
If Pinewatch receive an alert would they call ADT? There are 3 ADT vehicles in Pinelands and we need to maximise resources everywhere. There is also SMA Guarding. An independent body can maximise those relationships where with a private security company the relationships become blurred. Realistically the community has been asked to fund this project.
For the project to be a success it requires transparency, accountability and community participation.

More questions and comments from residents:
Q: Where will PNW come up with R600 000/year to run this?
A: Good question. After 3 years Pinewatch will ask you for R185 per year so the community will pay for it anyway. A few opportunities can be explored e.g . Old Mutual has a sophisticated camera system, perhaps they can be approached to monitor another 16 cameras . PW is asking the community for the capital costs which is R1.4 million, the cost to monitor for the 3 years and we need to investigate it as a community.

Q: Where we going to get the money?
A: we are going to have to get it in 3 years anyway
Phase 1 is only 1 PTZ so it’s a LPR project which has various mechanisms to fund it.

John Haupt: We’ve left the concept of the CID to raise money through Ratepayers. If there are 5000 houses, then for just R10 a month per household you can raise the R50 000 per month.

Thomas Blatherwick: PW has 65% of client base, 40% of whole of Pinelands

Q: Resident: You want us to start paying next month but the issue of ownership of cameras changing to PRRA hasn’t been settled
A: Pinewatch will start calling its customers, and so will need to push back the implementation a few months. They don’t yet know the response. The advertising/letter got a reaction, but they can’t just take the money from clients. Their customer base grows at about 10 customers per month.

Q: Will the money will be put into a separate entity, with Financial statements that are open to the Community
A: We have opened a separate bank account in the name of PSCP in Chris and Thomas Blatherwick name. We understand that we should have accountability.

Alan Dunnell: There is lots of red tape to form a CID. Pinewatch can provide the basis and been overseen by PNW and PPRA. I think this is more practical than a whole community to meet the legislation

Resident: If Pinewatch manage it for 3 years – then it gives NW a chance to take it over?
Ian McDonald: The opinion of members of PNW is that they don’t want to pay R1450 directly to PW but rather to a community based organisation. You want to recruit to increase members but from ADT and as a community we shouldn’t be underwriting that as a community project.

Riad : Proposal that PRRA and PNW and PW and ADT and SMA need to discuss this and interact to find some common ground. Pinewatch still needs to get feedback from their clients.

Robert Winearls: Suggested a CC with PW/PNW/PRRA?
Another resident seconded it

Eve Dunnell: PW have the technical ability to set it up and maintain. PNW hasn’t.

Thomas Blatherwick: We are willing to work with the community – PNW/PRRA/SAPS. We have the debit order infrastructure. We admit it was a mistake to not go via the Muse and all residents first instead of just to Pinewatch customers.

Beverley Paly of SPOTTM
Gave a brief presentation of their social media software. They are using Melkbos as a test and would like to use Pinelands as a beta test for 2-3 months. Some people use Facebook here and this is a different platform. It can have a mix of, for example, crime, sales and lost pets.


Notes from the PPRA Meeting on the
Heritage Protection Overlay Zone (HPOZ) on 13 March 2014


An extra PRRA meeting was held due to the resident’s concerns about 24 Forest Drive and the Heritage Area.

Dimitri Georgeades (District Head Table Bay and Parow; Environmental and Heritage Management) and Pieter Koekemoer (District Head Table Bay; Planning and Building Development) were invited to address the meeting. Although it was arranged that Dimitri would be the speaker for the evening, the meeting ended up being more of a question and discussion format. Below is the gist of the questions and points that were raised.

Pieter explained that in planning and building development, the Town Planning Scheme (TPS) and the National Building Regulations (NBR) apply. Sometimes other input is required such as from Heritage Western Cape (HWC). If they give approval, it goes back to the TPS. If then approved, it then goes to NBR for technical approval. Demolitions are granted by a higher authority i.e. Province. If it is a partial demolition, and it happens that after a partial demolition that the building is then unstable, the owner can apply for complete demolition.

Resident and Heritage Practioner, Chris Snelling informed the meeting that he did the first Heritage survey in Pinelands and his set of drawings should still be with the City. If a building is older than 60 years, Province/HWC deal with it and decide if it is a significant building or not. He said PRRA should check whether they are registered with Heritage Western Cape (HWC) because if they are HWC is supposed to take PRRA into account. He helped to clarify for the residents present that Province deals with the alterations/demolition aspect, and the City deals with the “what goes up in its place” aspect i.e. how does this impact on the Heritage significance of the area /conform to the character of the area.

A resident questioned that if a partial demolition is done, then it meant a section of the original house is left intact and incorporated into the planned house. The plans should show the remaining portion. If then a full demolition is done, surely a new set of plans should be submitted that need to be approved and signed?

Riad David said PRRA were not informed of the demolitions as should have been done. Plans should include the new work, the building must look like the plans and if it doesn’t it has deviated. Councilor Brian Watkyns is putting in a request with the building inspector to evaluate if they are building according to plan.

It was asked: what went wrong with 24 Forest Drive, how was it passed through all the departments, can the trail and who was involved be picked up from day one, is the house suitable for the Heritage Area and can residents see the plans? Pieter explained that Interested and Affected Parties could view the plans at the Planning Department and just needed to fill in a form for the viewing record. If copies were to be made, then the owner has to give permission and this goes through the Access to Information process.

Karen Wilkens, an Urban Designer, said that we needed to look at the character of Pinelands and what key things define it so that we can go forward to ensure the HPOZ is protected. There is a difference between aesthetics and culture (whose) and aesthetics and heritage.

Another point raised was that Pinelands is a Garden City: Pinelands and gardens go hand in hand. People are supposed to only build on only 50% of the plot. How are houses being allowed to be built boundary to boundary and no garden? Why are they passed?

Dimitri explained that this happens due to departures being allowed to increase the coverage. It’s done in the Town Planning application by the CCT Town Planning Department. The increase footprint is allowed without consulting the community. It should be advertised but that is not happening.

It was also commented that 24 Forest Drive was a “tipping point” and questioned as to how do we stop this from happening again? Residents expressed the concern that ‘they had been let down” and that the City had “messed up” in that the new house doesn’t fit into the Heritage Area

Dimitri explained the HPOZ used to be called Urban Conservations Areas. The National Heritage Resources Acts aims to protect the cultural and historical aspects of an area. Pinelands as a vanilla or general Overlay Zone i.e .no specifics. He suggested to the residents that they:
1) Develop design guidelines into the HPOZ. The City can work with someone in the community. He and Pieter offered their assistance.
2) Be involved in the decision making in the area. Give input and appeal. If the heritage and streetscape are affected they can appeal.

A positive outcome of the meeting was the start of an “Aesthetics Committee” for Pinelands made up of residents who would work together with the City to establish the general character and design guidelines for the HPOZ for Pinelands as a Garden City.


Notes from the General Meeting held on 12 February 2014


Chairman John Berry introduced the new Excom as longstanding members Alan and Eve Dunnell had “retired” after the AGM last year. Renee Brooks has taken on the Roads and Traffics portfolio and Carol Clark the Secretary/Admin one.

Vice chairman Riad Davids gave feedback on the following: 1) The proposed crushing plant of Ross Demolition, opposite Maitland Spar. PRRA will oppose it. 2). The Howard Bowling Club is vacant and is zoned for a sports club. The City has turned down some applications for non-sport club use. Residents could offer suggestions to PRRA for possible uses of the club. 3)The mowing contractor is doing better and residents should let PRRA know if there are any problem areas. 3) The Athlone Transfer Station has a new crane and improved shunting and smells have been reduced. The Residents Monitoring Group, which meets once every three months, is looking for another person so that they have a quorum and he asked if there were any people interested in joining that. He encouraged people to recycle more. Residents commented on the guys who scratch in the recycling bins and leave a mess and take residents recycling bags.

Most of the rest of the meeting focused on the situation at 24 Forest Drive. Residents had many questions and concerns about the demolition and the house that was being built, such as: How was it allowed to be demolished? It is built right up to the boundaries – how was that given the “ok” by PRRA?
It looks like it’s built on a much bigger area than the allowed 50% of a house on a property. Is it a multiple house, flats or a hotel? Does it fit into the area aesthetically – it doesn’t look like other houses in the area? What went wrong? How will it be presented from happening? Did neighbours sign on new plans after the total demolition?

Councilor Brian Watkyns:
In terms of plans being approved, a property owner sends his plans to the Planning Dept of the City of Cape Town. If there are departures, it is sent for yes/no objections to the neighbours (City decides who they are), PRRA and Brian Watkyns to sign.

Pinelands Municipality fell away when it was incorporated into the City. A Heritage Area was declared.
24 Forest Drive was the first house to request a demolition under the Heritage Act. The City and Province were “not on the same page”. Province was supposed to advise interested organizations in the Heritage Area of the demolition, but PRRA wasn’t advised. Province gave the owner permission to partially demolish the house. IF it’s a house in the Heritage Area, the City is supposed to notify the neighbours. The owner was meant to put an advert on the property for 14 days informing of the demolition to give time for neighbours to object. This did not happen. The partial demolition exceeded what had been allowed and Brian had structural engineers called in and they declared the remaining structure unsafe. The owner then applied for a full demolition and again this was not advertised on the property for objections.

The Zoning Scheme states that it must be a single residential property. There have been complaints and they been made to stop building at times. The owner cut down trees without approval in the Heritage Area. Originally the house wasn’t in the Heritage Overlay Zone – if the application happened now the demolition wouldn’t be allowed. The owner said that the three neighbours had signed the plans.

Residents asked if it was “departures” or a new zoning scheme that could change the “face of Pinelands”? They expressed concern that although people may build “within their rights”, the houses are not appropriate for Pinelands Garden City; the potential for increased density and about “monstrosities” being built such as in Edinburgh Close.

Megum Reyneke explained the new building regulations: It used to be 4.5m from the road, 1.5 m at the sides and 3m at the back, unless the Title Deed stipulated otherwise. Now it is 4.5m from the front and 3m all around. It depends on the size of the property: 600 – 900 – 1200m2. If it’s smaller than 650m2, it is subject to development rules, that is 60% of the 3m, taken from 12m from the road. The regulations are more stringent and the neighbours have to know. The new regulations came into effect from 1 March 2013.

An article about this meeting appeared in the Peoples Post on 20 February that misrepresented the meeting. Although a letter of response was sent to the Peoples Post and the Tatler, it was never published in either of these.

Peter Hofmann gave the following report on the Pinelands Neighbourhood Watch:
There has been a recent increase in serious crime namely:
In December there was a house robbery in Glen Avon and a man was arrested
In January there were 3 hijack/robberies with firearms: Mead Way, Woodside, Serpentine
Theft out of motor vehicle crime has decreased.

He encouraged residents to report incidents of crime as resources are allocated to the SAPS stations according to the crime statistics. NW has 283 members (185 have chosen to donate R200 a year) and 98 are active patrollers. But there are about 5000 households in Pinelands, so a few people are doing a lot of hard work!
The AGM is on 10 April 2014. NW is looking to reestablish the sector coordinators so he asked residents to nominate any proactive community members.

The radio repeater was installed on Friday and now we own our own electrical equipment. Residents can purchase their own radios for better communication between PNW patrollers, the police, ADT and Pinewatch. Details are on the Website www.pinelandsnw.co.za

NW Flyers were sponsored by Butlers. Shane Thom of Silky Consulting also donated towards the SAPS Ward Recognition. He gave thanks to Sally & the NW Committee for all their hard work and encouraged people to get involved. He said we are extremely lucky with the quality of policeman we have in Pinelands.


Notes from the General Meeting held on 12 February 2014


Chairman John Berry introduced the new Excom as longstanding members Alan and Eve Dunnell had “retired” after the AGM last year. Renee Brooks has taken on the Roads and Traffics portfolio and Carol Clark the Secretary/Admin one.

Vice chairman Riad Davids gave feedback on the following: 1) The proposed crushing plant of Ross Demolition, opposite Maitland Spar. PRRA will oppose it. 2). The Howard Bowling Club is vacant and is zoned for a sports club. The City has turned down some applications for non-sport club use. Residents could offer suggestions to PRRA for possible uses of the club. 3)The mowing contractor is doing better and residents should let PRRA know if there are any problem areas. 3) The Athlone Transfer Station has a new crane and improved shunting and smells have been reduced. The Residents Monitoring Group, which meets once every three months, is looking for another person so that they have a quorum and he asked if there were any people interested in joining that. He encouraged people to recycle more. Residents commented on the guys who scratch in the recycling bins and leave a mess and take residents recycling bags.

Most of the rest of the meeting focused on the situation at 24 Forest Drive. Residents had many questions and concerns about the demolition and the house that was being built, such as: How was it allowed to be demolished? It is built right up to the boundaries – how was that given the “ok” by PRRA?
It looks like it’s built on a much bigger area than the allowed 50% of a house on a property. Is it a multiple house, flats or a hotel? Does it fit into the area aesthetically – it doesn’t look like other houses in the area? What went wrong? How will it be presented from happening? Did neighbours sign on new plans after the total demolition?

Councilor Brian Watkyns:
In terms of plans being approved, a property owner sends his plans to the Planning Dept of the City of Cape Town. If there are departures, it is sent for yes/no objections to the neighbours (City decides who they are), PRRA and Brian Watkyns to sign.

Pinelands Municipality fell away when it was incorporated into the City. A Heritage Area was declared.
24 Forest Drive was the first house to request a demolition under the Heritage Act. The City and Province were “not on the same page”. Province was supposed to advise interested organizations in the Heritage Area of the demolition, but PRRA wasn’t advised. Province gave the owner permission to partially demolish the house. IF it’s a house in the Heritage Area, the City is supposed to notify the neighbours. The owner was meant to put an advert on the property for 14 days informing of the demolition to give time for neighbours to object. This did not happen. The partial demolition exceeded what had been allowed and Brian had structural engineers called in and they declared the remaining structure unsafe. The owner then applied for a full demolition and again this was not advertised on the property for objections.

The Zoning Scheme states that it must be a single residential property. There have been complaints and they been made to stop building at times. The owner cut down trees without approval in the Heritage Area. Originally the house wasn’t in the Heritage Overlay Zone – if the application happened now the demolition wouldn’t be allowed. The owner said that the three neighbours had signed the plans.

Residents asked if it was “departures” or a new zoning scheme that could change the “face of Pinelands”? They expressed concern that although people may build “within their rights”, the houses are not appropriate for Pinelands Garden City; the potential for increased density and about “monstrosities” being built such as in Edinburgh Close.

Megum Reyneke explained the new building regulations: It used to be 4.5m from the road, 1.5 m at the sides and 3m at the back, unless the Title Deed stipulated otherwise. Now it is 4.5m from the front and 3m all around. It depends on the size of the property: 600 – 900 – 1200m2. If it’s smaller than 650m2, it is subject to development rules, that is 60% of the 3m, taken from 12m from the road. The regulations are more stringent and the neighbours have to know. The new regulations came into effect from 1 March 2013.

An article about this meeting appeared in the Peoples Post on 20 February that misrepresented the meeting. Although a letter of response was sent to the Peoples Post and the Tatler, it was never published in either of these.

Peter Hofmann gave the following report on the Pinelands Neighbourhood Watch:
There has been a recent increase in serious crime namely:
In December there was a house robbery in Glen Avon and a man was arrested
In January there were 3 hijack/robberies with firearms: Mead Way, Woodside, Serpentine
Theft out of motor vehicle crime has decreased.

He encouraged residents to report incidents of crime as resources are allocated to the SAPS stations according to the crime statistics. NW has 283 members (185 have chosen to donate R200 a year) and 98 are active patrollers. But there are about 5000 households in Pinelands, so a few people are doing a lot of hard work!
The AGM is on 10 April 2014. NW is looking to reestablish the sector coordinators so he asked residents to nominate any proactive community members.

The radio repeater was installed on Friday and now we own our own electrical equipment. Residents can purchase their own radios for better communication between PNW patrollers, the police, ADT and Pinewatch. Details are on the Website www.pinelandsnw.co.za

NW Flyers were sponsored by Butlers. Shane Thom of Silky Consulting also donated towards the SAPS Ward Recognition. He gave thanks to Sally & the NW Committee for all their hard work and encouraged people to get involved. He said we are extremely lucky with the quality of policeman we have in Pinelands.


Report on the AGM of the Pinelands Ratepayers and Residents Association held on Wednesday 9 October 2013


Max Schutte, the editor of The Muse, in his talk on The Changing Face of Pinelands said there were 2 clichés about Pinelands: that it is full of old people and that it is the most racially diverse suburb in the country, but the census figures of 2011, 2001 and 1996, proved that neither was accurate. The biggest growth has been in the 20-39 age group. Although the suburb was now more racially diverse, 62.3% were still white (as compared to 88.5% in 1996). Thornton has more younger residents and is more racially diverse. Comparing household incomes, there were fewer white residents in the top bracket of R100,000 per month than other racial groups. Although the population had increased from 11,662 to 14,198, the housing density had barely changed to 858 households per square kilometre. Pinelands was a well-educated suburb with 90% of adults with Grade 12 and higher.

More people were now renting accommodation. There were more home industries and businesses, more walls and barriers. Nevertheless, the unique village lifestyle continued with open spaces and a green belt, so Pinelands was still a good family environment. However, it lacked entertainment and social venues for the young and had inadequate retirement facilities for the current middle-aged.

Riad Davids, the Vice-Chairman, said that though some residents were affected by noise while the Northern Sewer Line was being built, the work had to go ahead provided it kept to agreed times : Monday to Friday 7.00 - 18.00; Saturday 7.00 - 17.00. Councillor Brian Watkyns said people could object to work on Saturday.

Heritage had granted a partial demolition of 24 Forest Drive even though it was in the Heritage area . Neither the neighbours nor the Ratepayers Association had been informed. As the partial demolition apparently exceeded what had been allowed and the building was unsafe, it seemed that it would have to be totally demolished. Councillor Watkyns insisted that the new house should fit into the Heritage area and that neighbours had the right to see the plans.

Residents no longer needed permission from Heritage to plant trees on their verges, but could obtain recommended varieties from the City provided they watered them.

Peter Hoffman of Pinelands Neighbourhood Watch reported that serious crimes like murder and rape had declined, but robbery had increased. Councillor Watkyns added that Langa was pleased that there had only been 24 murders!

Notes from the General Meeting
held on Wednesday 13 February 2013


The main speaker at the General Meeting was Don Shay, Founder and Trustee of the proposed Youth Possibility Centre to be established in the grounds of Pinelands High School. The objective is to provide a Youth and Community Centre offering a range of sporting facilities on which to develop life skills such as leadership, entrepreneurship, career and further study connections. Jeremy Gibbon, the Principal, stressed that as a community school, Pinelands High had strong links to other schools in the area, and offered a broad educational and sporting choice and was pioneering 21st century education using modern technology. Andrew Rudolf of KMH Architects, who had designed the highly successful Western Province Cricket Club buildings, presented the drawings for the proposed buildings which would cater for both sporting and social activities for the whole community.

Alderman Brian Watkyns spoke about the problem of derelict houses which encouraged vagrants to move in. He had held talks with officials and welfare organisations on ways to move vagrants off the streets and back into society. He also appealed yet again to residents not to use the horse and cart people to offload their rubbish as it would simply be dumped elsewhere.

The major complaints from Pinelanders were about electricity and accounts. Power outages are caused by overhead electricity cables touching trees. Alderman Watkyns wanted to know why the plans to put electricity cables underground had been stopped. Gaby Albert complained about burst water pipes causing the water pressure to drop. Another problem Alderman Watkyns raised was inconsiderate parking at schools by parents ignoring traffic rules. Fixing the paths along Elsieskraal had been particularly troublesome with insufficient money and unsatisfactory contractors. The C3 system of registering complaints with the City was proving reliable and efficient. To lodge a complaint, contact pinelands.ratepayers@gmail.com

Alderman Watkyns had been responsible for declaring the older part of Pinelands a Heritage Area. The new Zoning Scheme to be issued on 1March would clarify the implications.

The February valuations had been sent out and people could object only between 21 February and 30 April which was the cut-off date. A circular would be issued to explain that an increased valuation did not necessarily mean a huge increase in rates.

Sally Borchert of Neighbourhood Watch thanked patrollers but said that another 4 radios were needed. She stressed that people had to be more careful and not leave valuables in unlocked cars or in full view of opportunistic thieves. Laptops, cellphones, sports equipment, handbags and a leather jacket had all been stolen from cars. Facebook was a good way of communicating with neighbours, but complaints should be made to the police, not on Facebook.

Dissatisfaction was expressed by the rapid turnover of police commanders. The new commander had been introduced in October but had already been redeployed. Alderman Watkyns pointed out that appointment of police officials was a national not a provincial responsibility. However if the new commander lived in Pinelands as proposed, there would be more stability.

Alderman Watkyns issued a number of useful phone numbers and e-mails :
To check whether a C3 complaint was being attended to by the City Council : phone 086 0103 089 or SMS 31220.
For water and sewerage faults SMS 31373
Other useful e-mails : contactus@capetown.gov.za
power@capetown.gov.za
watertoc@capetown.gov.za
For child vagrants under 18 phone a social worker at 071 8150 920
For service requests see City website www.capetown.gov.za.


Perception Survey
Pinelands Ratepayers Association


CLICK HERE to download a copy of the PID PERCEPTION SURVEY

Perception Survey
The objective of the questionnaire is to find out how residents perceive their suburb in terms of safety, cleanliness, service delivery, maintenance of the environment, general attractiveness and appeal. 350 replies (one per household) would represent slightly more than a 10% sampling of public opinion in Pinelands which has 3339 residents. Wayne Houghton expanded by saying that this is further broken down into 250 residents, 75 Visitors/shoppers and 25 Businesses.

The questionnaires can be returned by placing them in the box at the Pinelands library or the sub-council office in Central Square by 31 March 2012, or scanned and emailed to info@geocentric.co.za

Wayne Houghton
tel: 021 461 9797 cell: 082 852 1695


PINELANDS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT:
Report on PRRA General Meeting of 29 February 2012


CLICK HERE to view notes from this meeting


Presentation by Wayne Houghton on
the Proposed Pinelands Special Ratings Area


CLICK HERE to view the presentation


Notes From PRRA General Meeting

held on 23 Feb 2011 at 7:30 p.m.


Sunrise UCT Hostel
Regrettably the scheduled speaker, Dimitri Christallides, cancelled his attendance at 11 a.m. on the day of the GM explaining that he would be unable to address the Ratepayers because the negative feedback about the proposed extensions to the student hostel at Sunrise meant that there was insufficient time to draw up new plans.
UCT distanced itself from the long-term development of the hostel currently occupied by UCT students, thus there was no certainty about how long UCT would use the facility. It was proposed to increase the number of rooms from 79 to 130, thus raising student numbers to 338, with 12 to a toilet. There was no guarantee that bunk beds would not be installed, further increasing the numbers. It was questionable whether the canteen could cope with the extra numbers, so students might be tempted to cook illegally. It was also not clear how well the students would be supervised.
Brian Watkyns said that the new entrance was more likely from Avonduur than Jan Smuts Drive. The servitude through the Business Park was not for pedestrians but only for through vehicular traffic that was not allowed to stop.
Natalie Duff, a neighbour, complained that when the hostel was used by Abbotts College, there were complaints about noise, litter and loitering, but the situation had become much worse with rubbish trucks parking at the gates and hooting in the early hours of the morning. Colette Tennison , another neighbour, was concerned that the hostel might become a residence for students in general with less control.
Although the plans were said to include recreational facilities, in fact, as Roger White pointed out, the swimming pool was not in use and the basketball court was a car park.
Mr Mariner criticised the Council for its lack of control over illegal building, but Riad Davids, supported by Clive Fletcher, said that it was up to the community to be vigilant and prevent building from starting. He appealed to neighbours to inform the PRRA at the first signs of building. He stressed that the PRRA rejected undesirable building projects, but that it did not specify what ought to be erected. He expected the developers would soon submit a proposal in writing.
By a show of hands there was no support for this development by the members in attendance. Riad Davids thanked the householder who had kindly provided hospitality on 17 February for the PRRA to meet neighbours affected by the proposed development.

Special Rating Area
Riad Davids reported that Taffy Roberts had now got all the information he needed from Council and was drafting a plan that would be submitted at a public meeting which would be advertised in the press. When presented with the facts and costs, Pinelanders could decide whether to continue with the project which needed a majority of 50% + 1 in favour.

COUNCILLOR’S REPORT BACK
Council wall: In response to Marion Lennox, Alderman Watkyns said that the Council would not pay to increase the height of the wall.
`Pinelands developments’: He also pointed out that many developments supposedly taking place in Pinelands were outside the boundaries.
4 Ennerdale had been partially built, but neighbours were objecting.
The pizzeria in Howard Centre had applied for a temporary liquor licence.
The two law enforcement officers were now on duty until 10 p.m.
Speed cameras were to be erected on Jan Smuts to curb speeding and drag racing.
Elsieskraal River Reserve :
Lights had now been installed along Elsieskraal.
The Council was in dispute with the contractor who had laid the pipes along Elsieskraal, thus leading to delays in fixing the paths.
Pollution from Ndabeni: More information was needed from neighbours in order to find the source of the pollution.
Coronation Park: A group of mothers had offered to upgrade the park.
Garden of Remembrance: R15,000 had been received from a Trust, and a landscaper had helped with suggestions, leading to an attractive transformation. Clive Fletcher congratulated those involved in this improvement, but asked for a low fence to keep small children in.
Court cases: The two illegal orphanages were being taken to court, so was SAWAS for admitting young people to an old-age home.
Leases: Brian Watkyns was investigating what Council property was leased to whom.
Avonduur squatters: Because they were squatting on government land, the Council could not evict them, but the Premier, Helen Zille, had been asked to persuade the government to act.
Transport: Following complaints about taxis, the lack of Jammy Shuttle service and inadequate transport, a public transport users’ forum had been formed to engage with taxi drivers.
Council budget: As Alderman Watkyns had just left a Council meeting, he briefly outlined some of the proposals which he stressed would first have to go for public comment. Property rates would go up. Old-age homes would benefit by paying property rates instead of commercial rates. Those earning between R3,000 – 4,000 per month would have their rates reduced. Electricity would go up, but a certain amount of free electricity would still be offered to low users. Sanitation and waste disposal would also increase. In reply to Ellen Gouws’ question on the criteria used to decide how much water and sewage should be free, he admitted he did not know, but said that free water would now only be given to the indigent.

Wisteria Avenue
Both the Chairman and Riad Davids commended Ellen Gouws for her initiative in canvassing neighbours to pay for a fence. Ellen Gouws complained that the open space had become a dumping ground and Sally Borchert wondered how much it was used.
Marion Lennox pointed out that the vibracrete wall erected by Council was too low and the barbed wire on top was insufficient deterrent.

GENERAL
Verges: In reply to B. Smart, Alderman Watkyns said that though Council would mow wide verges, property-owners were expected to maintain the rest. B. Smart asked if PRRA could not ask householders to trim hedges and trees that encroached on pave-ments. Clive Fletcher asked if the proposed SRA could maintain verges. Brian Watkyns pointed out that if people chose to plant on the verges, they were responsible for the upkeep. Mr Marriner pointed out that a house in Alice’s Ride was government property, was neglected and needed to have the verge cut.
Traffic violation : When Mr Marriner complained that the law enfocement officers were ignoring traffic violations such as jumping red lights, he was told that they did not have the authority. Colette Tennison complained about speeding at night along Avonduur.
Central Square Park : T. Munro complained about squatters in the park behind Central Square which was covered with broken glass and litter. Brian Watkyns pointed out that this was a designated open space.
Lights in Springbok Close: Brian Watkyns assured Sally Borchert that these would be installed as soon as the money was available.
Clyde Pinelands: T. van Oortmerssen asked if any progress had been made. Brian Watkyns said that trees were being trimmed, but said that the Club was struggling financially, which the questioner disputed judging by the number of cars and people at the Club. He pointed out that if repairs were not done soon, they would be even more expensive. Brian Watkyns promised to look into it.
New planning regulations: In answer to B. Smart, Brian Watkyns admitted that he did not know how these would affect Pinelands.
Problem house : In reply to Sally Borchert’s query about the house in Gousblom, Brian Watkyns said it was one of 3 problem houses in Pinelands, but the new owner had submitted plans.

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 9:20 p.m.


Update on major developments affecting Pinelands


(Feb 2011)

The Old Police Station
According to the Deeds office, Masanda Real Estate Pty Ltd are the registered owners. Plans submitted by the developer were objected to by a neighbour as not being in keeping with the area. PRRA supports this position. Although it appears that the developer is not going ahead at this stage, the situation will be kept under review.

Old Conradie Hospital site
Conradie remains a property of the State and has not been sold as the condition of sale was that all parties had to agree to the proposed development. PRRA is registered as an interested party and will be informed if and when there are any new proposals. Our objections were the increase in traffic density so we proposed a double highway linked to the N1. Other concerns were sewage capacity and no provision for extra schools. SAPS objected to the high density and no provision for an additional police station. Development is on hold and plans have a limit of 2 years before needing to be re-submitted from scratch.

Pinelands Grove Hostel
The hostel at the Pinelands Grove site on Sunrise (Way) was bought by Tygerberg Development Trust in 2007, and has been leased to UCT. The town planner for the land owners is currently negotiating with the neighbours, and at our General Meeting on 23 February will present plans to extend the building by an additional 259 units taking the total from 79 to 338, and also increase the number of parking bays to 95. There are many objections to the proposals especially as UCT only has a 5-year lease after which there are concerns that the owners will be free to pursue their original plans to which PRRA objected.

Oude Molen
This site has been subject to many development ideas to incorporate a variety of self-sustaining activities and to meet the needs of communities that claim heritage rights. Two members of the PRRA Committee sat on the Joint Negotiating Committee for 4 years, then the Government stopped the process. PRRA is questioning the authorities to try to understand what is happening. In the meantime it would seem that buildings are being demolished and the swimming pool closed to the detriment of the local community.

Howard Centre
The Ratepayers and Council are concerned about facilities for delivery vehicles to the shopping centre. Parking bays for Library staff and bays for disabled persons have also been discussed with the owners who have to observe bye-laws and binding agreements.


What the Association Does


There was once a cartoon of a man home from work looking with appalled horror at his living room, which seemed to have been hit by a hurricane, with a view of the kitchen sink piled high with unwashed dishes while his wife stretched out on the couch reading a magazine remarks `You always tell me I do nothing all day, so that’s what I did.’

People (like the husband) often say a Ratepayers Association does nothing and ask what’s the point of joining. If things run smoothly, we take them for granted. It’s when things go wrong, that the Association is needed. We can and do intervene to help residents in dispute with neighbours or the Council.

Of course, the Association cannot fix the potholes or mow the grass verges, but it can and does pressurise the Council to do its job. One of the most important functions of the Association is to maintain the Garden City image by enforcing bye-laws such as building regulations, so, for example, the committee will not allow a 3-storey structure or any building on the boundary lines.

The local bye-laws also specify that all houses must be primarily residential, so a business can be run from home provided the owner lives there and uses only part of the house for work purposes. Owner-occupied bed and breakfast establishments are acceptable; guest houses run by a non-resident manager are not. Enforcement of the bye-laws upsets those who want to break them, but the Association will not set any precedents which would turn Pinelands into an over-built concrete jungle with whole streets turned into commercial areas.

The Association is also registered as an Interested Party with all the big proposed developments in Pinelands and the neighbourhood, so nothing can be done without first informing the Association which will always act in the best interest of Pinelands residents.


Instant Opinion Meter

Traffic flow at the Library parking entrance at Howard Centre is a problem.
The Pinelands Ratepayers Association Exco wants Logan Way to change to one-way from Sheldon Way to Forest Drive, enabling cars to turn left into the library car park and exit left towards Forest Drive, thus avoiding the traffic congestion.
(see the proposal and picture above)
Do you agree that this is the best solution?


Logan Way should be
Left as it is now 21%
one-way from Sheldon Way to Forest Drive 43%
one-way from Forest Drive to Sheldon Way 29%
Two way and move the parking entrance 4%
tick & click... (166 votes)

Your Comment

report or comment on any issues or problems


To see an archive of articles from 2010
Click Here