|
Tulbagh Info Information
Community Consultation works
So some developers and have sensitivity and are willing to do things right.
Further interchange of emails brings hope towards a solution to the proposed encroachments.
From: John at Rocky Valley [mailto:rockyvalley@telkomsa.net]
Sent: 31 August 2009 09:19 AM
To: David Nasson
Subject: Fw: Old Van der Merwe and Van Zyl Hardware building
Dear David,
Tulbagh Mews (Old Van der Merwe and Van Zyl hardware building)
I had a meeting with the developer, Nigel Clack on Friday PM.
There is not much separating us in terms of a resolution to the problem. He is sensitive about doing what is right for the town and for his development. Your inclination to make decisions that may not be in the best interests of the community have proved to be totally unnecessary. The developer knows what he wants and appears to be ready to make concessions to make his development work for himself and the community.
So community participation and consultation is the name of the game?
Discussions revolved around how best to make the pavement work, with a bit or give and take. There is no need for a 'plinth' (verandah) as I said before. The present pavement levels could be altered to accommodate the difference in levels to his entrances (at his expense). The shop that is too high, could have a ramp within to make up part of the difference in levels. The developer has shown a willingness to provide parking in Piet Retief Street at his own cost - if his development can be accessed from both streets. He also talked about providing a double story parking area on the Piet Retief Street side of his development.
So why can we not get together on this instead of being at loggerheads? A canopy of 3m (to line up with the Pep Stores boundary encroachmenent could be a possibility). The community could have a covered unobstructed covered canopy in front of his shop and southwards to the Tulbagh apteek building (which I understand is also contemplating a development onto its boundary). He is sensitive about the blaring speakers and the 'overkill signs'. So let is all talk together to make this a win/win situation for all?
Let us consult?
Kind regards,
John Veschini
----- Original Message -----
From: Hennie Taljaard
To: John at Rocky Valley
Cc: David Nasson
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:53 PM
Subject: RE: Old Van der Merwe and Van Zyl Hardware building
John,
Nigel visited me this morning and he advised me that he is doing away with the plinth and looking at raising the pavement level instead.
When they initially approached me with a proposal for a canopy I thought that it would do much to improve the façade (and the wider streetscape).
Yes the plinths would have been outside the boundary, but still inside the proclaimed road reserve (if you recall my presentation about the reserve width of 25m and the boundary width of 30m). The conditions were to make it clear that the area taken up by the canopy (including the plinths) would remain in public ownership. On these grounds I considered it good enough to support the proposal.
With regards to the parking I was conscious of the fact that they are seeking to redevelop the site and that they would have dedicated parking at the back. I was also acting within the provisions of the town planning scheme.
I do not take my job lightly and I am ever conscious that decision has implication. I recognise your right to be part of the decision-making process and to me it is not about fighting and arguing. This job can get very tough at times, but I believe in its purpose and all I ask is some respect and trust.
I would be happy to sit down with you (and Nigel and anyone else) to discuss the matter and find common ground. My only condition is that we do it in a tolerant manner and seek the public good.
Sent : 01 September 2009 10:13 AM
From :John Veschini
To: Hennie Taljaard
Re: Old Van der Merwe and Van Zyl Hardware building
Hello Hennie,
Thank you for your mail. I do understand that the responsibilities of your job are very real and that I have no doubt that you do not take your decisions lightly. You must also please understand where I am coming from.
I cannot take the Pep Stores 'debacle' and the decisions which were made and the consequences thereof very lightly either. So I fight for the rights of this community to protect their right of access and their amenities as almost a obsession now. My approach may not always be what people would like to hear but there appears to be no other way to get the desired effect of full public participation in matters that should be in the broader public interest - such as the possibility of loosing part of their pavement. I am not prepared to sit back and see any further boundary encroachments in Tulbagh and more especially structures that obstruct the right of the users of the public place in any manner - no ramps, stairs or 'plinths'.
I am happy as a ratepayer to accept a readjustment of the pavement levels to about 500mm below Nigel's door, which is about 1m above the pavement level. This would mean that the flower bed rock curb will have to be raised and the levels of both the flower bed and the pavement adjusted to slope upwards to the 500mm below door level. He would have to make up the difference by ramping within his shop? I would be happy also that the curb is raised so people don't climb over and cross the flower bed. I would also seek to have Nigel's cooperation to line up his paving to the Pep Stores paving to get rid of those hazards of differing levels, ramps and steps?
I was also approached by Anton Van Zyl (the owner / developer of the Pharmacy building) and he asked me what it was that I had in my mind as apparently he was also looking to be accommodating. I explained all the above and suggested that he should talk to both yourself and Nigel as a common approach to the pavement level would be a good thing. They would of course have to accept that from the entrance to the Pharmacy building southwards, the pavement would have to slope downwards to the ATM of the Bank (which is also over their boundary by the way) and an obstruction, so they would have to also be accommodating?
Nigel is happy to have a canopy to line up with the front wall of the building of Pep Stores. Anton is possibly talking about a lesser width for his canopy. I think anything less than 2,7 to 3m would mean that cars would still be able to get onto the pavement and be obstructive to the public and conformity of position of the canopy supports would be in the interests of the public and be more aesthetically pleasing?
I would also believe that the 'so called' road reserve should be put aside and that we should talk about only the boundary width in all matters pertaining to that side of the street - due to the slope of the land and the resultant fact that it would be impractical to use the road reserve anyway.
I also believe that it is now of paramount importance for the Municipality to negotiate a phased takeover of the road from Province. We cannot have two authorities involved in these Van der Stel Street planning matters anymore.
I would also be happy to meet with you, Nigel and Anton on site, to reach consensus in the interests of the broader public anytime. My conditions are therefore the same as yours.
Regards,
John Veschini
|