R54m luxury building for Chapman’s Peak

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
49,868
Reaction score
21,626
Location
Durbanville, Cape Town
http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/r54m-luxury-building-for-chapman-s-peak-1.1209847

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


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.


DA - really ?
 
DA Government Approves Office Block in National Park - Chapmans Peak

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
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/N...110?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
This is going to make a lot of people very angry!
 
R54m luxury building on Chapman’s Peak Drive

January 9 2012 at 09:28pm
By Melanie Gosling
chapmans peak 1a

INLSA

Chapmans Peak, in Cape Town. Picture: Matthew Jordaan

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. - Cape Times

***There will be a public protest march on January 22 starting at 10am from both ends of Chapman’s Peak Drive.
http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/r54m-luxury-building-on-chapman-s-peak-drive-1.1210175
 
What is most startling is that we only get to hear about it once everything is approved and the building is about to begin.

The DA is very good at hiding unpopular decisions. I see a pattern here.
 
If its built between the road and the sea, no biggie, a few metres of shrubs gone, if its built above the road , then a bit of an eye-sore.
If it includes plans to upgrade the 2 pathetic little hovels that consist of the toll booths then also good.
 
If it includes plans to upgrade the 2 pathetic little hovels that consist of the toll booths then also good.

What's wrong with the current toll booths? They are perfectly adequate for the job.
 
Good for the DA!

Finally some sense, property being privatised is always better than nationalising property. And call for property to be kept in the state hands is just as bad as advocating for the continuation of nationalisation.

Bet the same okes complaining are hypocritically against Malema's nationalisation of important industry and mines plan - go figure.
 
Good for the DA!

Finally some sense, property being privatised is always better than nationalising property. And call for property to be kept in the state hands is just as bad as advocating for the continuation of nationalisation.

Bet the same okes complaining are hypocritically against Malema's nationalisation of important industry and mines plan - go figure.

Can't work out if this post is in jest or you can't see the difference between national parks which belong to everyone and mines that belong to private companies.
 
Good for the DA!

Finally some sense, property being privatised is always better than nationalising property. And call for property to be kept in the state hands is just as bad as advocating for the continuation of nationalisation.

Bet the same okes complaining are hypocritically against Malema's nationalisation of important industry and mines plan - go figure.
Maybe the kickbacks from Murray & Roberts are better from private. Just a thought.
 
Can't work out if this post is in jest or you can't see the difference between national parks which belong to everyone and mines that belong to private companies.

No jest, WilD_CaT is a pure capitalist at heart.
 
I don't see why they shouldn't privatize all our parks. The politicians do not really have the ability to take best care of it, whether they are DA or ANC.
 
Last edited:
Can't work out if this post is in jest or you can't see the difference between national parks which belong to everyone and mines that belong to private companies.

Something once nationalised also "belongs to everyone". (Apparently you don't seem to understand this). Nervermind that but the tragedy of the commons applies to communal ownership, because if everyone owns the land, no one owns the land.

Any "national" or public property in the absence of the state would be privately owned. Thus the states thugs force you to give them money and use it to prevent people from owning property.

Currently the state is the largest landowner in South Africa. Instead of giving this land to the people (A lot of it was taken under apartheid and just transferred to the new government) as it should, it would rather fleece the taxpayer to pay out private land owners (via Land Bank land reform) and then give this land to people.

Its the same story with RDP housing and the 2 year grace period before ownership is transferred. And is a fact concerning the new green paper, where the state uses taxpayer money to buy the land for itself and lease it back to "previously disadvantaged" with certain conditions. If those communities feel differently about how the land must be used than the state, the state just takes it back!

The fact that you don't understand that the economic impact and effects of the state owning property is the same regardless of it owns it in future by nationalising private land or owns it now, through nationalisation in the past.

If not, then please explain how the state comes to acquire such prime real estate.

But the point is this, in principle, nationalism leads to state ownership of the means of production (Property, buildings and equipment/machinery) which is also the definition of socialism (State ownership of the means of production).

Now at the very least, mining land is productive. (Profitable if run as a business). What you are arguing for in this case, is that the state should "own" the land to use as it sees fit (Not in the best interest of the people as a whole, how would you even determine this) and because you are, as I see it, greedy, you incorrectly assume you have a legitimate claim to a portion of that land and thus you feel if privatised you would lose a portion of your property in principle.

Please explain how you can legitimately lay claim to such land as a taxpayer. I am a taxpayer and I gave no such consent to you or anyone else to use my taxes to help buy and maintain a proportion of land so a few people (large minority) can have a look at the pretiness of it, whilst there are taxpayers who can barely afford to pay for rent, food education etc.
 
No jest, WilD_CaT is a pure capitalist at heart.

I would argue I'm consistant regardless of the philosophy.

I argue against state owning capital, so naturally I would be against nationalisation, but then I also don't arbitrarily make exceptions for the DA or "pretty" pieces of land that some people "enjoy" on principle.

Hell, I LOVE the Kruger Park. But if you asked me if it is justified taking money from the poorest of taxpayers so "richer" folk can go see wildlife in the luxurious comfort of the camps of our national park, then I would argue no, there is no moral or legitimate justification for it. It really boils down to, "I like it and because we are a democracy I can vote to FORCE you to pay to provide for my relaxation, leisure and enjoyement." (I have no idea if it is self-sufficient or not, but the principle remains.)

Its wrong.

You can't flip-flop on issues all the time like Mitt Romney and expect "intelligent people" (I use the term loosely) to take you seriously. People who can't think for think for themselves are gullable and swallow drivel, but others will question the "unexplained" orthodoxy of opinions.

If we want more individual economic freedom in South Africa, that means the state has to be smaller, interfere less, own less etc. This includes the pretty Chapmans Peak.
 
Something once nationalised also "belongs to everyone". (Apparently you don't seem to understand this). Nervermind that but the tragedy of the commons applies to communal ownership, because if everyone owns the land, no one owns the land.

Hey I don't like the idea of nationalisation but seeing that national parks are unfortunately (poorly) run by the government, a province can't just go and take that land to do as they please. If they start, where do you draw the line? I'd imagine there would be a couple of companies who'd gladly pay a massive sum to put billboards in front of table mountain.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X