shining pearl in the shadow of the cape town metro drakenstein … · shining pearl in the shadow...

SHINING PEARL IN THE SHADOW OF THE CAPE TOWN METRO: DRAKENSTEIN, A PLACE OF

(SPATIAL) EXCELLENCE?

SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK VISION

The Drakenstein Municipality located at the heart of the Winelands, and building on its assets – its dramatic scenic landscape, precious natural and cultural heritage, quality educational institutions and sporting facilities, thriving agricultural economy and unrivalled access to the regional access and logistics networks – will be a place of excellence for all its residents

(Drakenstein Municipality, 2015:19)

Report prepared by

Ronnie Donaldson

July 2017

Drakenstein | Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ iv

List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................... v

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. Demographic and Economic Overview ............................................................................. 5

3. Main Spatial Transformation Issues .................................................................................. 9

4. Alignment with Other Plans ............................................................................................ 11

5. An Overview of The Spatial Development Framework .................................................... 13

6. Assessment of the Spatial Development Framework ...................................................... 20 6.1 The quality of the planning process ....................................................................................... 20 6.2 The quality of the plan ........................................................................................................... 23 6.3 Degree of implementation ..................................................................................................... 29

7. General Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 36

Reference List ..................................................................................................................... 39

Annexure A SPLUMA shortcomings .................................................................................... 42

Drakenstein | Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: KWV wine producers ................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Wine farms .................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 3: Development of the Val de Vie .................................................................................... 3

Figure 4: The extent of gated development urban sprawl to the south of the N1 ...................... 4

Figure 5: A gated estate in the vineyards to the south of the N1 ............................................... 4

Figure 6: Mbekweni urban sprawl linking Paarl and Wellington spatially ................................... 5

Figure 7: The six themes of the Spatial Development Framework .......................................... 15

Figure 8: Matrix of six Spatial Development Framework themes, the ten spatial principles and

the new approaches matrix of themes ...................................................................... 16

Figure 9: Six key strategies of the Spatial Development Framework ...................................... 17

Figure 10: Location of the 13 focus areas .................................................................................. 18

Figure 11: Waterpoel: Agricultural land earmarked for development ......................................... 19

Figure 12: Paarl Gimnasium ....................................................................................................... 20

Figure 13: Informal infill housing in Mbekweni ........................................................................... 29

Figure 14: Formal infill project at the old prison in Paarl Central ................................................ 29

Figure 15: High priority project distribution ................................................................................. 33

Drakenstein | Page iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Comparative census data for selected data, 1996, 2001, 2011 ................................. 6

Table 2: Key statistics for Drakenstein Municipality (2011) ...................................................... 6

Table 3: Selected population, economic and infrastructure statistics ........................................ 7

Table 4: Drakenstein Municipality – Sectoral growth, 2005–2013 ............................................ 8

Table 5: Drakenstein Municipality – Sectoral growth for various periods ................................. 9

Table 6: Summary of organisational issues pertaining to the Spatial Development Framework

process ...................................................................................................................... 20

Table 7: Spatial planning concepts ......................................................................................... 25

Drakenstein | Page v

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANC African National Congress

CBD Central Business District

CIP Capital Investment Plan

CWDM Cape Winelands District Municipality

DA Democratic Alliance

DM Drakenstein Municipality

DRDLR Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

EMF Environmental Management Framework

FA Focus areas

GDPR Gross Domestic Product Regional

GIS Geographic Information System

IDP Integrated Development Planning

IUDF Integrated Urban Development Framework

KPAs Key Performance Areas

LUPO Land Use Planning Ordinance

LUPA Land Use Planning Act

MSA Municipal Systems Act

NDP National Development Plan

RDP Reconstruction and Development Programme

RSA Republic of South Africa

SACN South African Cities Network

SDF Spatial Development Framework

SPLUMA Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act

TOD Transit-Oriented Development

WCPSDF Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework

Drakenstein | Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

To understand the contemporary history of the Drakenstein Municipality (DM), it will

be necessary to briefly reflect on the formation of its current administrative and political

boundaries. Following the first phases of local government’s post-apartheid municipal

transition of the early 1990s, the Local Government Municipal Structures Act, Act 117

of 1998, made provision for the establishment of municipalities. A vexing question at

the time was whether the so-called fringe areas – Paarl, Wellington, Franschhoek,

Stellenbosch, and the Helderberg Basin (Strand, Gordon’s Bay and Somerset-West)

– had to be included in the Cape Town metropole. Whereas proponents of a larger

metropolitan area argued that the fringe towns “were inextricably linked with the

metropolitan area economically and in respect of services”, these assumptions were

disputed by these municipalities and they argued that the fringe areas were

“dependent upon the core area for only 13% of manufacturing inputs” (Cameron,

1999:120). The commuting figures from Paarl and Wellington to the Cape Town

metropolitan area were very low at 6.9% and 4.9%, respectively (Cameron, 1999).

After numerous public hearings and various reports, the Demarcation Board decided

to include only the Helderberg Basin. It was claimed that given the large tracts of

rural/agricultural land, these towns and their environs did not fulfil the criterion of being

densely populated in a metropolitan sense. The reports reviewed by the Demarcation

Board thus interpreted that large tracts of rural land located in the shadow of the

metropolitan area should not be included in the metro.

The Drakenstein Municipality (DM) was established in 2000 as one of five

municipalities located in the Cape Winelands District Municipality (CWDM) (the other

four are Stellenbosch, Witzenberg, Breede Valley and Langeberg) and is located

about 60 km north-east of the Cape Town inner city. The DM is strategically located

on the national road and railway route to the rest of South Africa and effectively forms

the gateway to the City of Cape Town. As will be shown in this report, by 2017 the

emphasis on rurality of the DM still features prominently in spatial plans as well as the

Spatial Development Framework (SDF).

There has, however, been a distinct historical rural settlement pattern in the area long

before the finalisation of the DM boundaries as we know it today. The Paarl valley was

first colonised in 1687 when land was allocated to 23 families from Stellenbosch. The

district was initially known as Drakenstein, named after its church congregation, but

when a village was founded at the foot of Paarl Rock in 1690, it was named Paarl

(South African History Online, 2012) – derived from Parel, meaning Pearl in Dutch.

The other settlements within the DM are also steeped in colonial history. Currently, the

DM covers an area of 1 538 km2 and comprises a mix of settlement types, namely the

intermediate city of Paarl, the small town of Wellington, the Saron mission station and

the two rural villages of Gouda and Hermon.

http://www.sahistory.org.za/places/paarl


The Democratic Alliance (DA) is the dominant political force and has increased their

lead in votes by 9% between the 2011 and 2016 local government elections (2011 –

57%; 2016 – 66%). The African National Congress (ANC) has seen a drop in votes

from 31% to 24% over the same period. The municipality received unqualified audits

since 2012 (RSA, Department: National Treasury, 2016). The motto of the DM is

‘Place of Excellence’. Some national assets include a decentralised campus of the

Cape Peninsula University of Technology and a Paarl campus of the Boland College.

The DM is also home to the Boland Rugby Union (with its professional rugby team,

the Boland Kavaliers) that plays in the national Currie Cup rugby league.

The spatial (and segregated) geography of the urban conurbation of Paarl/Wellington

is defined by a river (the Berg River), a national highway (N1) and a town’s boundary.

To the west of the river is the predominantly former ‘whites only’ part of Paarl – mostly

well-off citizens, loaded with heritage, the central business district (CBD), a regional

mall, as well as the KWV South Africa (Pty) Ltd. wine producers, and some wine farms

located within the urban area (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The psyche of Paarl West (the

main urban area in the DM) is strongly based on tradition and heritage. The school

you attended puts you in a specific ‘grouping in society’, whether it is Paarl Boys’ High

or Paarl Gimnasium (the two well-known and highly sought-after top-rated model-C

schools). Inkommers (inmigrants) are not easily assimilated into the broader

community.

Source: Author’s own (2017) Source: Author’s own (2017)

Figure 1: KWV wine producers Figure 2: Wine farms

To the east of the river one will find the former coloured and black residential areas,

the predominately low-middle income class, but with pockets of middle income

residents in the coloured areas. The psyche of Paarl East is mainly that of survival. To

the south of the N1 is a ‘sprawl’ of urban sprawl! Three major gated developments

(Boschenmeer Golf Estate, Val de Vie Winelands Lifestyle Estate and the Pearl Valley

Golf Estate and Spa) were developed since the 1990s, and are spatially separated

from the rest of the urban built-up area of Paarl by the national highway (N1). Figure 3


shows the area in the distance being cleared for the next phase of sprawled

development of the Val de Vie. The psyche there is that of affluence, exclusion and

segregation.

Source: Author’s own (2017)

Figure 3: Development of the Val de Vie

Across the Paarl town boundary lies Wellington which is said to be a very close-knit

community where inkommers find it extremely difficult to assimilate. The main urban

area of the DM is therefore essentially divided into four segregated compartments.

The elongated shaped conurbation of Paarl, Mbekweni and Wellington forms the

urban core of the municipality and makes for an interesting urban growth scenario.

The length of the urban sprawled gated estates south of the N1 is almost the length of

Paarl West (Figure 4).


Note: Northern blue line depicts the total length of the Paarl (main central part) and the southern blue line depicts the gated developments. Source: Adapted from Google Maps (2017)

Figure 4: The extent of gated development urban sprawl to the south of the N1

Figure 5 shows a gated estate in the vineyards to the south of the N1. In addition,

Paarl has, through the dramatic expansion of the Mbekweni township since the 2000s,

spatially grown towards Wellington. As a result, the main township area of Mbekweni

is at present comfortably in the middle between the two towns (Figure 6). It is evident

that housing provision remained being driven by a socio-political logic and not an

economic logic (South African Cities Network [SACN], 2014).

Source: Author’s own (2017).

Figure 5: A gated estate in the vineyards to the south of the N1


Source: Adapted from Google Maps (2016)

Figure 6: Mbekweni urban sprawl linking Paarl and Wellington spatially

Heritage, rural character and agriculture, all within the metropolitan functional region

of Cape Town, are aspects worthy exploring in the context of the DM’s spatial plans.

If rurality has been a defining characteristic since demarcation, then how does the DM

deal with issues of urban sprawl, broadly, and restructuring urban spaces, specifically

These are the key lessons this case study will emphasise. This case study report is

essentially a high-flying review that addresses the above statements. The DM SDF

was reviewed using a standardised set of questions and a review template. Although

the SDF document was the main source of information, interviews were conducted

with selected stakeholders (see reference list) for their opinions on a range of issues

pertaining to the SDF and spatial transformational agendas in the DM.

2. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC OVERVIEW

According to the 2011 Census (Statistics South Africa, 2011), the population of the

Western Cape Province grew at a rate of 2.5% between 2001 and 2011. Drakenstein

grew slightly more over the same period, at 2.6%. It is worth noting that between 1996

and 2001 the Census reported a mere 0.8% growth (Table 1). Some 6% of the

households are classified as agricultural. The DM has the largest population of all the

municipalities in the CWDM area. The population of the DM is dispersed across urban

and agricultural areas, with 45.5% residing in Paarl, 19.1% in Wellington, 11% in


Mbekweni; and a small percentage residing in Victor Verster, Saron, Gouda,

Drommedaris, and in the Reserves. Coloureds (60%) make up the bulk of the

population, followed by blacks (26%) and whites (13%).

TABLE 1: COMPARATIVE CENSUS DATA FOR SELECTED DATA, 1996, 2001, 2011

Selected characteristics of Drakenstein Municipality

1996 2001 2011

Total population 184 932 194 417 251 262

Population growth rate No data 0.8

(1996–2002) 2.6

(2001–2011)

Unemployment rate 16.3% 22.8% 17.2%

Employed (aged between 15 and 64) 64 266 65 209 83 824

Average household size 4.3 4.1 3.9

Households by formal dwellings 34 790 36 360 50 875

Households by informal dwellings 6 422 7 089 8 015

Source: Compiled from Statistics South Africa (2011)

Statistics on the unemployment rate of the DM (17%) shows that it is lower than the

provincial (22%) and national (30%) rates (Table 1). Although the average household

size has decreased by 0.2% between 2001 and 2011, the number of households has

increased by just over 15 000 over the same period. Informal dwellings have increased

slightly by just under 1 000 units over this ten-year period. Other selected

demographic, economic and infrastructure data are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

TABLE 2: KEY STATISTICS FOR DRAKENSTEIN MUNICIPALITY (2011)

Number of households 59 774

Number of agricultural households 3 645

Housing owned/paying off 46.3%

Flush toilet connected to sewerage 90.2%

Weekly refuse removal 86.1%

Piped water inside dwelling 80%

Electricity for lighting 95%

Source: Drakenstein Municipality (2016)


TABLE 3: SELECTED POPULATION, ECONOMIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE STATISTICS

DRAKENSTEIN POPULATION

Indicator 1996 2001 2011 2016

Total number of people 186 334 194 417 251 262 280 195

Total number of people – urban N/A N/A 214 389 257 505

Total number of people – rural N/A N/A 36 873 22 690

Rural – traditional N/A N/A

Rural – commercial farms N/A N/A 36 873 22 690

Total number of households 42 108 44 410 59 774 71 686

Average annual growth rate of population since previous period

N/A 0.9 2.6 2.2

Average annual growth rate of households since previous period

N/A 1.1 3.0 3.7

Density

Total area of the municipality 1 538 km² 1 538 km² 1 538 km² 1 53 8km²

Total area of built-up area (urban area) 48 km² 55 km² 61 km² 64 km²

Persons per m2/density per km² 126.41 per km² 163.4 per km²

Persons per m2 for built-up area 126.41 per km² 163.4 per km²

Households per m2 for built-up area 0.0008 per m²/ 807 per km²

0.0009 per m²/ 980 per km²

DRAKENSTEIN ECONOMY

Total population 186 334 194 417 251 262 280 195

Total number of people employed 65 253 65 323 87 336 N/A

Employed people as a percentage of total population

35.0 33.6 34.8 N/A

Unemployment rate N/A 22.8 17.6 N/A

Youth unemployment rate N/A 60.3 47.1 N/A

Average household income N/A 67 687 143 354 N/A

Annual growth in household income (2001–2011)

N/A N/A 7,8 N/A

Average annual CPI (2001–2011) N/A N/A 5,9 N/A

Dependency ration N/A 49,5 44,5 52.9

DRAKENSTEIN INFRASTRUCTURE

Indicator 1996 2001 2011 2016

Total number of households 42 108 44 410 59 774 71 686

Number of households with indoor water access 30 707 29 247 47 827 60 557

% of households with indoor water access 72.9 65.9 80.0 84.5

Number of households with flush toilet access 35 998 39 384 55 984 70 529

% of households with flush toilet access 85.5 88.7 93.7 98.4

Number of households with electricity access 35 115 38 550 56 800 68 527

Percentage of households with electricity access 83.4 86.8 95.0 95.6

Number of households living in informal structures

6 422 7 089 8 015 6 825

% of households living in informal structures 15.3 16.0 13.4 9.5

Hectare of land occupied by informal settlements

Value of all building plans submitted R123 555 200 R135 435 241 R563 432 515

Source: Source: Drakenstein Municipality (2016)


The small-town growth potential study that informed the Western Cape Provincial

SDF, found that Drakenstein was considered a municipality with very high growth

potential (only 5 out of 24 municipalities in the province were grouped in this category)

(Van Niekerk et al., 2014). Despite this status, the DM’s growth trend was a modest

3% over the period 2005–2013 (Table 4); only the third fastest growing local

municipality in the CWDW after Stellenbosch (4.8%) and Langeberg (4.3%). The DM

growth trend is also below the average provincial (3.4%) and district (3.5%) rates

(Western Cape Government Provincial Treasury, 2015:20a and b). Nevertheless, the

DM contributed the second largest share (31%, R15.4 billion) to the district’s Gross

Domestic Product Regional (GDPR) in 2013.

Given the agricultural context of the DM, it is not surprising that agriculture and related

industries play a major role in the municipality’s economy. More than a quarter of the

workers (27%) are employed in the agricultural sector, 16% in social services, 14% in

manufacturing and 12% in trade (DM, 2010). The three largest contributors to GDPR

in 2013 for Drakenstein were the financial sector, insurance and business services

(30%), manufacturing (23%), as well as the wholesale, retail, trade, catering and

accommodation sectors (12%). The “finance and wholesale industries form part of the

broader commercial services sector and maintained the highest growth rate

throughout the period 2005–2013” (Western Cape Government Provincial Treasury,

2015a:23).

The DM sectoral growth rates from different sources and for various periods are shown

in Tables 4 and 5.

TABLE 4: DRAKENSTEIN MUNICIPALITY – SECTORAL GROWTH, 2005–2013

Industry Drakenstein Municipality

Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1.0

Manufacturing 0.6

Construction 3.4

Commercial services (inclusive of finance and wholesale) 5.1

General government and community, social and personal services 2.2

Other (fringe economic activities/industries within the region which includes

mining and quarrying, transport, storage and communication, as well as water

and electricity services)

4.1

Overall growth total 3.0

Source: Western Cape Government Provincial Treasury (2015a:21)

From Table 4 it can be seen that strong growth was experienced over the nine-year

period within the construction and commercial services sectors that maintained an

average growth rate of 3.4% and 5.1%, respectively. Manufacturing (0.6%) was the

worst performing sector. That said, although the agricultural sector performed

relatively weak, it did maintain the second highest growth rate amongst local


municipalities within the Cape Winelands (Table 4). The Drakenstein agricultural

sector also outperformed the district’s average agricultural growth rate (0.6%). The

performance of the agricultural sector is encouraging, considering that there has been

a noticeable contraction of this sector throughout the province (Western Cape

Government Provincial Treasury, 2015a:22). Construction and finance has

experienced the best growth rates between 1996 and 2015, followed by finance,

insurance, real estate and business services (Table 5).

TABLE 5: DRAKENSTEIN MUNICIPALITY – SECTORAL GROWTH FOR VARIOUS PERIODS

Sectors 1996–2001

2001–2011

2011–2015

1996–2015

2001–2015

Total 2.2 3.2 2.2 2.7 2.9

I01: Agriculture, forestry and fishing [QSIC 1] 2.3 2.5 1.2 2.2 2.2

I02: Mining and quarrying [QSIC 2] 15.9 0.3 1.4 4.3 0.2

I03: Manufacturing [QSIC 3] 0.3 2.4 2.1 1.6 2.3

I04: Electricity, gas and water [QSIC 4] 2.4 4.5 1.9 3.4 3.8

I05: Construction [QSIC 5] 0.8 12.1 5.0 7.5 10.0

I06: Wholesale and retail trade, catering and accommodation [QSIC 6]

6.7 5.1 3.4 5.2 4.6

I07: Transport, storage and communication [QSIC 7] 7.2 4.0 2.4 4.5 3.5

I08: Finance. insurance, real estate and business services [QSIC 8]

4.8 7.0 3.8 5.7 6.1

I09: General government [QSIC 91] 2.9 3.0 2.2 1.2 2.8

I10: Community, social and personal services [QSIC 92–96, 99]

4.0 4.3 2.8 3.9 3.8

Drakenstein has dropped its position as top contributor to district GDPR (overtook by

Stellenbosch) and its “growth has been subdued and below average over the past

decade. The adverse employment trend in agriculture and construction, which did not

abate during the economic recovery period, 2010–2013, is a worrying aspect of the

regional economy. On the other hand, the relatively strong manufacturing recovery

(2010–2013), which arrested the adverse employment trend in this sector, is

heartening. A more vibrant manufacturing sector will ensure that the relatively robust

growth in the region’s commercial services sectors can be sustained” (Western Cape

Government Provincial Treasury, 2015b).

3. MAIN SPATIAL TRANSFORMATION ISSUES

Williams’ (2000:169) conception of transformation – a term more often than not used

loosely and sometimes interchangeably with urban restructuring – is used in the State

of South African Cities Report (South African Cities Network [SACN], 2016:58) to

explain its abstract and fluid meaning: “a spatially defined, socially embedded process;

… an interrelated series of materially driven practices, whereby the form, substance

and overall dimensions of urban space are purposefully changed to reflect the


principles of a more equitable social order”, and it is a fluid process of change,

organically linked to the past, present and future. In a 2014 conference on spatial

transformation of cities hosted by the SACN, transformation of cities was suggested

to mean involving “spatial and social transformation, and requires the collaboration

and support of all role-players (public sector, private sector, business and residents)

where politics is seen as a governance issue and where space is contested” (SACN,

2014). It is argued that the challenge of urban transformation is to “balance the long-

term urban vision of inclusive, liveable, sustainable and resilient cities with the short-

term realities of urban spaces designed for segregation, migration and poverty. The

need is for a shared vision and collaboration across government spheres, the private

sector and citizens” (SACN, 2014).

Most spatial transformation issues arise from the relationship between transport,

human settlements and economic opportunity. Development issues typically arising

from such spatial transformation include economic opportunity isolation/exclusion;

economic consumption isolation; welfare exclusion; growing commuter distance and

cost issues; lack of racial integration in space (or persistent racial segregation); spatial

inequality and its ongoing exacerbation; rampant and uncoordinated spatial growth;

income threshold problems in spatially homogeneous areas (incomes and densities);

high costs of doing business for firms; high costs of governance and servicing for

government; unnecessary loss of agricultural land; and environmental issues.

The participants in the study were asked to identify the main spatial transformation

challenges that should be addressed by the city and how significant these are with

regard to other development and transformation goals. In no particular order, the

participants identified the five most prominent challenges as: (i) the need for public

transport, (ii) politics (political interference and lack of political will coupled with own

agendas of the private sector), (iii) infrastructure (renewal, upgrading, new

infrastructure), (iv) development pressures, and (v) dealing with vacant municipal-

owned land. Some more explanation about the above are as follow:

$ First, the current public transport system is complicated, highly contested and lead

to volatile situations between different combi-taxi companies. Although the SDF

does not refer to non-motorised transport systems as part of a city-wide transport

plan, the idea of introducing a public transport system similar to MyCiti in Cape

Town is needed for a better functioning transit-oriented development (TOD)

(namely to align a transport system with the suggested spatial TOD).

$ Second, politics is a major stumbling block in advancing the course for the

development of a truly just and equitable transformed city. Some choices of spatial

planning decisions made by the Drakenstein Municipal Council are counter the

calls for creating a sustainable city. Councillors (by implication therefore politicians)

are easily persuaded by private developers to allow for developments that are

contradictory to sustainable planning principles.


$ A third major spatial transformation issue mentioned is that of the upgrading of

basic infrastructure: aging infrastructure, rapid migration in the predominately

informal settlements (in need of infrastructure) and new developments (existing

substations provided by the municipality are over-capacitated). The infrastructure

dilemma was stated by one participant as ‘a hot potato’.

$ A fourth problem was dealing with the pressure for development in certain parts of

the city. The two main areas of developmental growth pressures are for gated

developments and informal housing. As might be expected, politics are intertwined

with development applications. The case in point is the development of Paarl South

(below the N1). What started out as urban sprawl of gated developments are now

being pressurised for the mixing of land uses, and in doing so ‘invading’ more green

fields. Tensions are created between private businesses with interest in the core

of the city as opposed to those wanting to invest in the mixed-use areas of the

gated development node. Another conflict that arises here is how such new

developments are to take place, taking the sensitive biodiversity, general

environmental conditions, as well as sense of place, into consideration. A group of

town planning students and lecturers from the University of Cape Town are in the

process of advising the DM on suitable spatial development of the area. Although

the Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs is also advising the municipality

in this regard, they also have difficulty in finding appropriate solutions on how to

balance the different issues, namely agriculture, environment, residential and

mixed-use developments, and social services (that will be needed as a

consequence of these developments). The DM expressed their desire to conduct

a study to determine if the heavy economic burden placed on city infrastructure

and services outweighs the financial benefit from property tax (as argued by

developers).

$ The spatial planning department has recently completed an audit of municipal-

owned property that is suitable for development (of which there are a lot

apparently). The information is, however, confidential and cannot be shared due to

the sensitivity of the issue. Therefore, as a fifth challenge, the Drakenstein Council

has to be convinced that these pockets of vacant land should be developed

appropriately to advance spatial transformation and not merely to benefit private

developers. However, there is no intention to apply for transformation planning

such as mixed-income areas.

4. ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER PLANS

The DM SDF is based on a set of generic spatial considerations, namely:

• The central spatial principles that have informed the framework proposals for each

focus area.

• An expansion of the principles and their implications for the approaches to the SDF

proposals.


• A common set of elements making up the spatial frameworks (such as the

components of the framework).

• The interpretation of the land use implications for the focus area frameworks (DM,

2015:15).

The SDF planning agenda is framed within the following policies and legislation:

National Development Plan (NDP); Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act,

2013 (SPLUMA); Western Cape Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (LUPA); Western Cape

Provincial SDF (WCPSDF); Drakenstein Integrated Development Plan (IDP); and the

Drakenstein Joint Planning Initiative (a project between DM and the Western Cape

Provincial Government that aims to identify joint priorities for the Drakenstein area, as

well as to attain complete agreement on the joint initiatives that will support those

priorities) (DM, 2015:12).

In addition to the policies above, the SDF is based upon the following points of

departure:

• The revision of the urban edge, approved by the Drakenstein Council, as part of

the 2010 SDF, was not included in the scope of this SDF review. Only minor

adjustments to align with approvals granted since 2010 were incorporated.

• At the same time, the assumption that all land within the urban edge is developable,

is questioned as a starting point to land use decisions, and accordingly, the 2010

SDF has made recommendations for land within the urban edge to retain its rural

character.

• Limiting development of land within the urban edge is the availability of

infrastructure capacity in the short to medium term. These limitations have been

considered in the implementation framework of the SDF. Limitations in the capacity

of the bulk infrastructure networks of the municipality will impact on the time frames

for the development of land parcels, identified as suitable for development. The

SDF includes prioritisation of development options for the short, medium and long

term, but ultimately the implementation of this plan is dependent on the municipal

budget allocation.

• The findings of the Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for the DM, and

in particular the identification of critical biodiversity areas, were adopted as a

starting point. It is, however, noted that since the publication of the draft EMF, some

ground-truthing has been conducted and this information was used to refine the

proposals.

• The findings of the heritage survey for the municipal area (Drakenstein Heritage

Survey Group, 2010), including the proposed heritage overlay zones, were taken

as a point of departure. However, supplementary research may be needed to

identify heritage resources related to pre-colonial history and the struggle against

apartheid. The municipality is in the process of compiling heritage-related by-laws


and character statements for these proposed Heritage Overlay Zones. The

character statements will comprise a character description, a list of character

forming elements and a list of decision-making criteria for all proposed

developments within these areas.

• The land use management principles employed in the protection of the ‘Paarl

Farms’ Policy, inform the reservation of peri-urban agricultural areas within, and

peripheral to, the urban edge in order to protect high value and unique agricultural

land; ensure ongoing agricultural production and food security; protect the heritage

value of the working landscape; facilitate agrarian reform and address food

insecurity in urban communities (DM, 2015:13).

5. AN OVERVIEW OF THE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

To achieve the suggested spatial outcomes of the SDF, ten interrelated spatial

development principles and six spatial logic themes manifested in six key strategies

for future spatial development. The 2015 SDF has set out ten interrelated spatial

development principles to guide the formulation of the focus area proposals and the

future development of the DM:

i. Continuity of green networks: Ensure the continuity and connection of core

biodiversity areas, river systems and landscape elements to establish connected

green networks.

ii. Establish well-defined and designed development – open space interfaces:

Ensure that the interface between green space and development is well

designed so that open space is overlooked and not edged by blank edges.

iii. Protect and enhance rural character: Ensure that all interventions in rural

areas are of an appropriate scale and nature to support rural livelihoods, whilst

at the same time protecting the sense of place and the agricultural resource base.

iv. Enable strategic densification: Densify residential development and cluster

activities in these areas for efficient use of infrastructure and available land.

v. Enable and promote mixed-use: Promote a mix of uses around nodes and

along corridors within the accessibility grid.

vi. Protect and enhance heritage resources: Acknowledge the importance of

heritage resources and carefully manage impacts at all scales of planning and

development, from the broader DM landscape and its settlement pattern to

individual buildings.

vii. Ensure connectivity between settlements and a hierarchy of nodes and

connectivity within settlements: Connect nodes and communities via safe and

attractive public transport and pedestrian friendly routes and activity corridors

within a hierarchical accessibility grid.


viii. Promote spatial integration: Facilitate integration through well-located new

development and infill, reducing barriers between communities and enabling

more efficient access to facilities and opportunities.

ix. Establish an accessible hierarchy of public facilities: Locate new facilities

and resources so that they relate to the accessibility grid. High-order regional

facilities should be within easy reach of the primary public transport and street

network.

x. Cluster social facilities: Cluster social facilities and activities within nodes to

optimise accessibility and convenience, while also improving security and

maintenance (DM, 2015:15-18).

The six themes that drive the spatial logic of the SDF are shown in Figure 7. In the

centre are the core elements of economy, infrastructure and tourism that are cross-

cutting the six themes. Ten land use management implications for each of the

elements that combine to constitute the SDF for each area, are then set out in the SDF

(DM, 2015:21). These are: Retained Rural Areas; Protected Green Core and Green

Gateways; Peri-Urban Farming; Agrarian Settlement Development; Urban Infill;

Industrial Core; Densification Zone; Nodes and Community Spines; Gateways; and

Scenic Routes.

A matrix of alignment between the six SDF themes, the ten spatial principles and the

new approaches to development is shown in Figure 8.


Source: DM (2015:20)

Figure 7: The six themes of the Spatial Development Framework


Source: DM (2015: 24)

Figure 8: Matrix of the six Spatial Development Framework themes, the ten spatial principles

and the new approaches matrix of themes

The SDF then distils the key spatial elements highlighted in the six themes into a high

level spatial concept that comprises six key strategies for the future spatial

development of the municipal area (Figure 9).


Six key strategies:

1. Focus growth in areas of socio-economic opportunity where multiplier effects already exist, for example the large urban settlements of Paarl, Mbekweni and Wellington.

2. Minimise spatial growth in the smaller settlements where economic opportunities are limited.

3. Protect the natural and agricultural resource base of the municipality as the basis of the local economy.

4. At the same time, allow for opportunities to broaden participation in key sectors such as agriculture and agroprocessing through small-scale peri-urban farming and expansion of industrial opportunities.

5. Protect and enhance the scenic and heritage assets of the municipality by limiting the expansion of the footprint of historic settlements, for example focussing on infill development.

6. Plan for future growth in the area to the south of the N1 in a holistic manner to ensure the establishment of an integrated settlement with a variety of opportunities, for example insuring that returns on infrastructure investment are maximised.


Figure 9: Six key strategies of the Spatial Development Framework

Although the SDF seemingly places much emphasis on the rural and natural

environments, it only focusses on 13 so-called urban focus areas (FA): FA1 Paarl;

FA2 Paarl East; FA3 Mbekweni; FA4 Wellington; FA5 Paarl South; FA6 Simondium;

FA7 Ben Bernhard; FA8 Klapmuts North; FA9 Windmeul; FA10 Hermon; FA11 Gouda;

FA12 Saron; FA13 Bainskloof Village (Figure 10). The rural areas are dealt with at a

broader municipal scale within the environmental management SDF theme.

Each of these areas are being guided by the 10 land use elements. A key spatial

restructuring component in the FAs is densification:

The Focus Area Plans identify areas for densification in well-located areas to

support transit oriented development in alignment with higher density mixed use

developments. Such densification could include formalising backyard dwellings,

redevelopment of existing buildings and residential conversions and subdivisions.

The motivation for this is to decrease the impacts of new growth on the long term

operating costs for the municipality by containing the extent of infrastructure and


transport networks. Equally important is the role that this spatial containment can

play in reducing the loss of agricultural land, cultural landscapes and ecosystems.

A total area of 414 ha has been identified for densification in well located nodes

(DM, 2015:45).


Figure 10: Location of the 13 focus areas

It is evident from the SDF that the DM has a strong emphasis on retaining the

farm/rural, heritage and biodiversity character of the municipal area. Contrary to the

shortcomings of applying an urban edge policy until the early 2000s (Smit, Interview),

the current SDF makes provision for retaining/conserving some open spaces/farm

areas within the urban edge. However, the SDF also contradicts itself by saying that

residential development on farmlands at Waterpoel (Figure 11) will be allowed:

“Adjusting the urban edge to include area south of Waterpoel for future low density off-

grid low impact rural lifestyle development to attract investment to Windmeul and


increase population threshold and economic base” (DM, 2015:107). Furthermore, land

use management principles applied on Paarl farms “inform the reservation of peri-

urban agricultural areas within and peripheral to the urban edge in order to protect

high value and unique agricultural land, ensure on-going agriproduction and food

security, protect the heritage value of the working landscape, facilitate agrarian reform

and address food insecurity in urban communities” (DM, 2015:13).

Source: Adapted from Google Earth (2017)

Figure 11: Waterpoel: Agricultural land earmarked for development

The importance of heritage conservation resonates in the IDP, SDF and in real-life

within the organisational structure of the DM. Located within the spatial planning

division of the municipality is the heritage section with the sole purpose to identify,

protect and manage the heritage (built form) of the DM. A key project was the

completion of a heritage resources survey which was approved in 2013 (but not yet

listed on their register) by the provincial statutory heritage authority, Heritage Western

Cape. Figure 12 shows the heritage character of the Paarl Gimnasium secondary

school.


Source: Author’s own (2017)

Figure 12: Paarl Gimnasium

6. ASSESSMENT OF THE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

6.1 The quality of the planning process

To understand the quality of the plan, a number of organisational and capacity-related

questions were posed to participants, as summarised in Table 6.

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT

FRAMEWORK PROCESS

Questions 2015 – Five-year review 2016/2017- Annual amendment

To what extent and how did the IDP process influence the SDF process?

IDP Key Performance Areas (KPAs) correlated to SDF themes, no in-depth linkage

New chapter built into SDF to discuss alignment of SDF with IDP

What was the reasoning behind appointing a consortium to do the SDF?

Specialist input. Expertise not all appointed in municipality

Consultant appointed to do part of SDF amendment

What was the budget for the development of the SDF?

R1.2m

What is the budget for administration and monitoring? (annually)

R180 000.00

What was the process, relationship between municipality (and the various departments) and service provider?

Very good relationship Very good relationship


Table 6 continued:

Note: 2016/17 annual review of SDF was not yet approved by Council at time of writing.

The timing of SDF approval was not yet aligned with two other crucial processes,

namely the IDP and the Municipal Infrastructure Master Plan. These all take place in

separate years, so the processes ‘are never on the same page’ in terms of planning

and budgets, according to one participant. Only with the annual review of the SDF in

2017 is there an attempt to align it with the IDP. The timeframe and process of

finalising an IDP and SDF are also different; where the IDP takes less than a year, the

SDF takes up to 18 months to complete.

There appears to be that no power play was at stake between departments in the

municipality, between the municipality and provincial/national government and

between government and the private sector. The real power play takes place in

Council among the councillors. The DM seems to have very good working relations

Questions 2015 – Five-year review 2016/2017- Annual amendment

What is the institutional capacity of the planning/spatial planning function in the municipality? How many persons are employed in the spatial planning / planning department? Number of people employed and at which level?

Spatial Planning Division Manager Senior Town Planner (1) Town Planner (1) Assistant Town Planner (1)

Spatial Planning Division Manager Senior Town Planner (1) Town Planner (1) Assistant Town Planner (1)

Does the municipality have a geographic information system (GIS)?

Yes Yes

How is it kept up to date? Capacity constraints – only 1 GIS operator

Capacity constraints – only 1 GIS operator

Was it used in the latest SDF preparation?

No No

If not in-house, what was the process, relationship between municipality and service provider?

In terms of tender requirements; Very good relationship

In terms of tender requirements; Very good relationship

To what degree was other municipal departments involved (engineering, finance) in SDF?

Community Services (Parks, Housing) Fair Finance Poor Infrastructure Good Environmental Good IDP Good

Community Services (Parks, Housing) Good Finance Poor Infrastructure Good Environmental Good IDP Good

To what extent have stakeholders been consulted in the SDF process?

Invitations to Business Chamber and members on IDP database; councillor workshops, public meetings, chariot, adverts, open days

Adverts to public, adjoining municipalities, departments: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, agriculture national and provincial, Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR), transport, Cape Nature

The approval process and dates – need to establish that it is an approved policy of the municipality (was approved by Council) and approved as part of the IDP as per the Municipal Systems Act (MSA).

Approved by Council on 28 October 2015 in terms of MSA

A report to be submitted to MAYCO during May 2017; approved as core component of the IDP


with the provincial and district municipality. The relationship with neighbouring

Stellenbosch Municipality has strengthened over the past couple of years. Two spatial

nodes, Klapmuts and Simondium, straddles both the municipalities, complicating

shared integrated planning. In the case of Klapmuts, Stellenbosch Municipality has

now taken the lead in preparing a spatial plan (hence only one consultant employed

by Stellenbosch). The WCPSDF has consulted with the DM in the preparation of the

provincial SDF, specifically about Klapmuts. At Simondium, on the other hand,

duplication in processes occurred, instead of merely facilitating communication

between the two municipalities. It was stated that “if you want to apply for Municipal

Infrastructure Grant funding for farm workers and Stellenbosch do the same, in the

process the applications are weakened as opposed to it having been a single

application for the area”.

The public – although they supported the SDF and its principles according to the SDF

statement – objected to increased densities and subdivisions, apparently associating

higher densities with low-income housing. The strength of the free market reigns

supreme, where its interests are not in line with the need for spatial transformation

(Nel, 2017). The SDF is not meant to be prescriptive in terms of housing typologies,

but must instead only be seen as a broader plan. Land use and housing departments

do not want to be prescribed by the SDF; they want to use it as a guide only.

Integrated planning is evident in the cross-cutting themes. As mentioned earlier,

economy, tourism and infrastructure were identified as the three core elements across

the six cross-cutting themes and the ten land use management principles of the SDF.

Tourism is indirectly linked to what can be considered as the three strongest aspects

of the SDF, namely heritage, agriculture and the environment. For example, heritage

tourism, agricultural tourism (local foods and production) and a focus on eco-tourism

(with a strong focus on the natural environment) and planned for in an integrated

manner. Yet, tourism is not a strong industry in DM as it has to compete against

Franschhoek and Stellenbosch.

The plan does not strongly speak to economic prospects and how economic planning

in a spatial context can be advanced. The plan also does not directly address the issue

of spatial transformation. In view of the national policy directive of spatial

transformation, the Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF) and its ‘new

deal’ is to maximise “the potential of urban areas by integrating and aligning

investments in a way that improves the urban form” as well as “retrofitting the existing

city footprint to produce compact, coordinated and connected cities, using transit-

oriented development (TOD) and other urban planning strategies to yield desirable

social, economic and environmental outcomes” (RSA, Department of Cooperative

Governance and Traditional Affairs [CoGTA], 2016:43). The DM addresses these

spatial ideals to some extent. Similarly, there is a mixed feeling as to how the DM

addresses the following IUDF policy levers to help restructure urban space:


$ Reducing travel costs and distances.

$ Preventing further development of housing in marginal places.

$ Increasing urban densities to reduce sprawl.

$ Improving public transport and the coordination between transport modes.

$ Shifting jobs and investment towards dense peripheral townships.

$ Making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

$ Developing and implementing holistic disaster risk management at all levels (RSA

CoGTA, 2016:36).

Although many of the aspects of the SDF indirectly speak to transformation as a spatial

project, there is no single dedicated plan for spatial transformation and the DM is not

considering one soon.

6.2 The quality of the plan

SPLUMA, implemented on 1 July 2015, and LUPA ushered in a new era of decision-

making in planning and development where the responsibility rests largely on local

municipalities to fulfil their role as land use planning decision-makers as per

constitutional mandates and obligations. Section 24(1) of SPLUMA determines that a

municipality must, after consultation as prescribed in the Act, adopt and approve a

single land use scheme for its entire area within five years from the commencement

of this Act. This land use scheme serves as a tool for municipalities to guide and

manage development according to their vision in terms of its IDP and SDF. This will

provide potential developers and land users with a clear indication of developable land

and its associated land uses within the municipal space. Clarity in land use zones can

avoid any future confusion and lengthy delays in terms of prospective

developments/uses. Currently, many municipalities have a Land Use Management

Scheme in place in the form of Zoning Schemes, which are compliant with the

provisions of the Land Use Planning Ordinance, Ordinance 15 of 1985 (LUPO). These

are known as LUPO section 7 and 8 schemes. The process has commenced to

replace these schemes to meet the requirements for Integrated Zoning Schemes

(Land Use Schemes) in terms of section 24 of SPLUMA. Transitional arrangements

following the planning law reform should be noted. The DRDLR and Circular 1 of 2015

of the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), noted that a municipality

can continue to operate within old-order legislative parameters in so far as that

legislation does not conflict with SPLUMA. The circular proposed that the decision-

making structures associated with SPLUMA must be applied (Western Cape

Government Provincial Treasury, 2015b:27).

The DM has not yet implemented the LUPA. However, their Council has adopted

delegations and tariff structures in place. The municipality currently has a Land Use

Management Scheme in the form of Zoning Schemes, that is compliant with LUPO.

The process has commenced to replace these schemes, known as LUPO section 7

and 8 schemes, in due course to meet the requirements for the Integrated Zoning


Scheme in terms of section 24(1) of SPLUMA (Western Cape Government Provincial

Treasury, 2015b:28).

According to the SACN (2015: 33), “SDFs can be considered as the most critical lever

to achieve spatial transformation. The various levels of SDF determine the key

elements of the desired spatial structure of the relevant spaces where they apply and

provide a long-term development vision. The SDFs are the mechanisms through which

the transformation principles contained in SPLUMA should find expression in a specific

spatial context. If the relevant aspects of spatial transformation are not appropriately

considered and applied at this level of planning, the transformation drive through

SPLUMA may fail in its entirety.”

Therefore, as a starting point, one needs to ask the question if the SDF is SPLUMA1

compliant. The SDF was reviewed with the help of a project team member according

to the legal requirements set out in SPLUMA (as stipulated in Section 21 and S12(1),

(2), (5) and (6) of SPLUMA). A total of 27 shortcomings have been identified. (See

Annexure A for a list of SPLUMA shortcomings in DM.) The stakeholders agreed that

the SDF does not meet all the requirements of SPLUMA. Some of these shortcomings

were addressed in this year’s annual revision of the SDF and that by the 2018 revision,

all the necessary requirements will be addressed. According to the stakeholders, the

provincial government agreed to the process of formulating the SDF according to

SLUMA, as far as possible, and that Provincial Government attend most of the

stakeholders’ forum meetings in this regard. The SDF public participation process was,

however, poorly attended by the community, with the exception of the Paarl western

area (predominantly white, middle- to high-income areas). A rethinking of how the

public participation process takes place, was regarded by stakeholders as important

in the next round of the SDF review in 2020. The filtering down of communication of

the SDF process via the ward committees to the community is hampered by

councillors who are not proactive. The portfolios do not reflect spatial development;

hence it is not viewed as important. Generally, only persons who have their own hidden

agendas will actively participate in such public participation processes.

The IUDF has four overall strategic goals as transformative vision, namely:

1 “SPLUMA overturns 100 years of South African town planning practice, as it recognises that local government is responsible for implementing and drafting planning by-laws, local SDFs and land-use management systems (LUMS). Before SPLUMA, planning and land development were fragmented, with multiple land development processes: The Development Facilitation Act (No. 67 of 1995), the Less Formal Township Establishment Act, Act 113 of 1991, and various provincial planning ordinances. Areas designated for black, coloured and Indian race groups had different planning legislation. In addition, land-use management fell under municipal jurisdictions established prior to the Municipal Structures Act, Act 117 of 1998. This meant that a single municipality would have multiple land-use management schemes with different definitions for land uses, which complicated the finalisation of land development applications. These schemes did not consider informal settlements or informal enterprises, and were defined within a strict modernist paradigm. In addition, the Municipal Systems Act, Act 32 of 2000, introduced the SDF as one component of the broader municipal integrated development plan (IDP). However, the relationship between the IDP, SDF, the land-use management schemes and the land development process was unclear and complex. Municipalities interpreted the various policy mechanisms differently, while provinces controlled certain aspects of the development planning process” (SACN, 2016:64).


$ Spatial integration: To forge new spatial forms in settlement, transport, social and

economic areas.

$ Inclusion and access: To ensure people have access to social and economic

services, opportunities and choices.

$ Growth: To harness urban dynamism for inclusive, sustainable economic growth

and development.

$ Governance: To enhance the capacity of the state and its citizens to work together

to achieve spatial and social integration (RSA CoGTA, 2016).

The purpose of this report was not to provide an opinion on the extent of how these

four visions can be viewed as transformative using DM as case study, but at face

value, as will become clear in this report, transformative agendas as anticipated in the

IUDF, are to be understood by reading between the lines.

The question is therefore posed: How is spatial transformation envisaged? It is argued

that “transformation of spatial form necessitates a critical review of the efficacy of the

tools that planners and city shapers have for a long time” (RSA, Department of

Economic Development [EDD], 2013:6).

Table 7 lists some of the most commonly applied tools/concepts as shown to what

extent these have been employed/introduced in the DM SDF.

TABLE 7: SPATIAL PLANNING CONCEPTS

Spatial concept Concept used

appropriately Reasons

Development/activity

corridors and spines

Yes Activity corridor has been identified as one of the 10 interrelated

spatial development principles. Only one such activity corridor

is planned for completing and/or improving eastwest and

northsouth road linkages, upgrading public facilities such as

Boland Park and the Dal Josafat Stadium and providing

incentives/opportunities for the establishment of vibrant activity

corridors along important routes such as Klein Drakenstein

Road.

Development nodes Yes Nodes, not development nodes, are used in the generic sense

of the word where nodes are strategically located areas on

high-usage routes where a high concentration of activities and

mix of land uses (commercial and public/community facilities)

should be encouraged, appropriate to the character of the area

and its role in the spatial structure. These nodes are clearly

indicated on the spatial concept maps.

Economic development/

investment zones

Yes/No Economic development and unlocking key economic drivers is

a Drakenstein Joint Planning Initiative with the Western Cape

Government.

Civic/community areas;

multipurpose service

delivery centres

Yes/No Only reference made to multipurpose sport centres (not

necessarily service delivery centres).

Mixed-use nodes or

corridors

Yes Mixed-use nodes are well reflected on spatial maps. In most of

the focus areas mixed-use spaces are being planned.


Table 7 continued:



Urban edge/boundary Yes The revision of the urban edge, approved by the Drakenstein

Council as part of the 2010 SDF, was not included in the scope

of this SDF review. Only minor adjustments to align with

approvals granted since 2010 were incorporated.

Features prominently, however in SDF, to prevent sprawl. A

realignment of the Edge in a rural area to the north of Paarl for

future low-density off-grid, low impact rural lifestyle development

to attract investment to Windmeul and to increase the population

threshold and economic base, have been planned for as a

medium-term project (2–8 years).

This somewhat contradicts (i) the notion of agrarian reform – peri-

urban agrarian reform to exclude ‘smallholdings’, ensuring a clear

distinction between residential lifestyle units within the urban

edge and small-scale commercial agricultural units outside the

urban edge. Peri-urban agrarian reform development is said to

inter alia serve to reinforce the urban edge and protect

agricultural and environmental resources in close proximity to

urban communities; (ii) at the same time, the assumption that all

land within the urban edge is developable is questioned as a

starting point to land use decisions, and accordingly, this SDF

has made recommendations for land within the urban edge to

retain its rural character.

Densification or infill

areas

Yes An area of 414 ha has been identified for densification. Have a

Densification and Urbanisation Strategy and Open Space

Utilisation Policy dating to the mid-2000s.

Urban development/

expansion areas

Yes Due to lack of services, there is limited scope for urban

expansion. Urban expansion to be contained through the creation

of an agricultural edge and a focus on infill.

Urban renewal/

regeneration zones

Yes DM has an urban renewal / regeneration policy – a clear policy

that provides guidance for the private sector implementing urban

renewal programmes, and spells out the role of the municipality

in supporting such programmes. Urban renewal programmes in

the CBDs of growth nodes and urban regeneration of culturally

and historically significant precincts and neighbourhood. They

will initiate and facilitate urban renewal programmes for strategic

precincts (for example Huguenot Station, Lady Grey, CBD, De

Poort, Paarl Hamlet) – none yet specifically identified.

Open space system Yes Interpreted as ‘Green Core’ as one of the defining elements of

the SDF. Aims to find a balance between open space and well-

defined development. Have a Densification and Urbanisation

Strategy and Open Space Utilisation Policy (2006)

High potential agricultural

land

Yes Many parts within the urban edge are agricultural producing

farms. Agriculture forms part of one of the three corridors of the

DM. Agriculture is one of the six themes of the SDF – promoting

the Drakenstein region as the primary agricultural production

centre of the Western Cape. Capitalising on existing agricultural

activities to strengthen the agricultural economy, while promoting

agrarian reform and rural development and ensuring household

and regional food security. Even talking of urban farming

(agricultural blocks) but no detail.


Table 7 continued:

Densification and mixed-use are two of the ten SDF principles. Of the 1 755 ha

developable land that has been identified in the 2010 study, the following land areas

are still available: Saron 10,38 ha; Gouda 8,79 ha; Hermon 5,6 ha; Wellington

134,89 ha; Mbekweni 217,41 ha; Windmeul 24,1 ha; Paarl 391,14 ha; Paarl South

657,08 ha; Simondium 29,39 ha; Klapmuts 10,96 ha; Ben Bernhard 96,4 ha – a total

of 1 586,14 ha that has been identified in the SDF for mixed-use and housing

developments.

Given the nature of the integrated spatial development maps in the SDF, it is not easy

to view how these densification spots/zones will impact on the overall urban form of

the settlements. However, according to the SDF the “capital and long term operating

costs of implementing new development need to be considered in determining whether

all of these sites should be developed and how they should be prioritized” (DM,

2016:44). There is no real clarity on exactly what is meant or planned for as mixed-

use spaces, besides the most obvious locations such as those around nodes and

along corridors within the accessibility grid. In some cases, these are clear-cut, such

as in FA3 (Mbekweni), at educational facilities (such as Ikhwezi where a school hall is

used as community centre / training facility), and in FA7 (green industry, agro-

processing, office parks and transport-related uses in the Ben Bernhard industrial area

at the southern end of Paarl). Others are not so clear, such as FA3 (to facilitate on-

street activity through well-located mixed-use areas to create more vibrant/complete

neighbourhoods).

Advanced spatial transformation planning such as inclusionary housing (mixed-

income housing and combining this with mixed-use) does not feature in the SDF

mindset at all. Indeed, the closest argument for mixing is that a “socio-economic

gradient with appropriate interfaces between various community groups should be

established so as to ensure that communities are not divided by large gaps in the living

standards between those living near each other” (DM, 2015:131). Future growth areas

should ideally protect land for low- and mixed-income / mixed-use development

(SACN, 2016); yet this is not the case in DM. In terms of the mass produced soulless

Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) housing developments that have

been developed across the country (and in the DMn) since 1994, the SDF does call

for a “focus on the importance of good design of housing for low income communities.

Housing design should always include safe public spaces with adequate landscaping



Protected or high

biodiversity zones

Yes Included in the EMF (not part of the SDF). Critical biodiversity

areas clearly mapped on the SDF.

Public transport focus

areas

Yes Ensure connectivity between settlements and a hierarchy of

nodes and connectivity within settlements with location of an

accessible hierarchy of public facilities within reach of public

transport route.


and positive street interfaces” (DM, 2015:29). Understanding and planning of

informality is being turned a blind-eye, except when it comes to the demarcated street

trading areas in the CBD. Local spatial development frameworks that will look in detail

at specific areas, will attempt to consider aspects of informality in planning. How this

is to be done, is unclear. Evidently the informal housing upgrading areas are not

included in the SDF (but will be included in the next review of SDF).

The two main modes of public transport are rail and combi-taxi. No provision for non-

motorised transport has been incorporated in the SDF, other than mentioning such

type as a potential green development. PaarlWellingtonMbekweni has a well-

developed sophisticated internal road network providing for good vehicular access to

its many urban facilities and opportunities. This road network supports a road-based

public transport system dominated by minibus taxis providing an internal as well as

external service, connecting the towns with the rural settlements. The railway line

providing for a rail-based passenger service, runs through the length of the

municipality in a northsouth direction with stations located at Paarl; Huguenot;

Mbekweni; Dal Josafat and Wellington in the urban centre of

PaarlWellingtonMbekweni; and Malan; Soetendal; Hermon and Gouda in the rural

areas. Although the railway line passes the town of Saron to its west en route to

Porterville, there is no station or direct rail link with the town (DM, 2012:47). An

interesting suggestion by one participant was the introduction of a social service train

(for example, clinic services, library, and pension pay-outs) to deliver basic

government services to the poor in the surrounding hamlets and isolated nodes such

as Klapmuts, Hermon, Gouda, and even expanding the service beyond the boundary

of the municipality.

The six themes of the SDF are in line with the National Climate Change Response

Policy, and are informed by a two-pronged approach to addressing climate change,

namely mitigation and adaptation. The SDF proposals are compiled to enable the

following climate resilient objectives: energy efficiency and demand-side

management; renewable energy; critical infrastructure, human settlements and

integrated waste management; sustainable transport; water security and efficiency;

biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services; food security; and healthy

communities. Actual proposals on exactly how this will be achieved are limited to, for

example, water recycling and to employ climate change risk reduction infrastructure

through green engineering. Biodiversity features prominently in one of the ten

interrelated spatial development principles (continuity of the green space theme) to

ensure the continuity and connection of core biodiversity areas, river systems and

landscape elements to establish connected green networks. In view of the current

severe drought and its impact on dealing with water scarcity, water should probably

have been prioritised. There is nevertheless no mentioning of any integrated water

sensitive urban design strategies. (See Lottering, Du Plessis and Donaldson, 2015,

for more on this concept.)


There are no dedicated public transport connections between place of residence,

place of work and social amenities. Existing road infrastructure serves this purpose,

linked to a transit-oriented frame of mind.

Limiting “spatial development of land within the urban edge is the availability of

infrastructure capacity in the short to medium term. These limitations have been taken

into account in the implementation framework of the SDF. Limitations in the capacity

of the bulk infrastructure networks of the municipality will impact on the time frames

for development of land parcels, identified as suitable for development. The SDF

includes prioritisation of development options for the short, medium and long term, but

ultimately the implementation of this plan is dependent on the municipal budget

allocation” (DM, 2015:13).

In terms of the implications of the plan for vulnerable groups, it is evident that this is

restricted to the infill projects (Gap housing and breaking new ground [BNG] housing)

in areas located within the existing pockets of poverty spaces. Figure 13 and Figure

14 show examples of an informal infill housing in Mbekweni and a formal infill project

at the old prison in Paarl Central.

Source: Author’s own (2017) Source: Author’s own (2017)

Figure 13: Informal infill housing in Mbekweni Figure 14: Formal infill project at the old prison in

Paarl Central

Growing the spatial economy as feature of the SDF is limited to broad brush

statements. The WCPSDF (2015) makes provision for seven overarching spatial key

elements. DM, together with Stellenbosch Municipality, is spatially located within the

Cape Metro Functional Region spatial planning category. How the DM SDF aligns

within the Cape Town Functional Region is unclear and warrants further investigation.

6.3 Degree of implementation

The procurement process in appointing consultants to prepare the SDF seems to be

counterproductive. In 2010, the SDF was originally prepared by Macroplan (Cape

Town); in 2015, by a consortium led by GAPP Cape Town, but the revision of the plan

has recently been completed by Urban Dynamics Gauteng Inc. The stakeholders felt


that, although they have good working relations with all service providers, continuity is

needed by employing the same consultants for at least a five-year period to do the

annual revisions. Transfer of knowledge and data from one consultancy to another is

complicated by legal processes. Overall, the participants were all in agreement that

the plan is of a high quality.

Achievements over the past 15 years include the following:

• Legislation – SPLUMA, as well as the ability to administer and approve applications

in terms of local by-laws. More freedom to implement local plans.

• Have an approved SDF in place with its principles of restructuring and

densification. Council supports these principles.

• Good relationship with Provincial Government. They are working together and

have identified ideal land for restructuring, but experienced problems with the

process of land transfer from province to municipality.

$ Flexible land use scheme that will make mixed-uses, or extra floors / floor area

possible without much effort.

$ Vacant municipal land audit that enabled the municipality to identify land that could

be used for ‘Gap’ or social housing, as well as land required for service delivery –

for example for disaster management or clinics. Preferred land uses are coupled

to remaining land and this can be made available to the public. With clear

information on the preferred land use they are more likely to get the development

that they want, as the market has greater certainty of what is acceptable or will be

permitted.

$ Beginning to discuss ways of enabling the formalisation/upgrading of backyard

dwellings through additional service connections. Wondering whether there is an

opportunity for a grant from the Department of Human Settlement, specifically for

enabling upgrading of backyard dwellings (given the social factors behind the lease

of these units, but also the health and safety implications of the current situation).

$ Good governance of the municipality is a double-edged sword. Besides the

benefits of good governance, it also attracts more people, including poor/indigents,

to the area with the hope that their lives will improve.

$ Specifically trying to take social facilities to the community that cannot easily

access them otherwise, also providing land for social infrastructure such as

crèches and churches. This includes providing a budget for the construction of

facilities such as community halls. The two Thusong Centres provide access to the

internet (for example for job advertisements) and computers, and enable people to

get their prescriptions and social grants.

$ Building partnerships such as Crime Prevention through neighbourhood

upgrading, that includes a non-profit company and German funding support. This


project seeks to reduce the crime and violence in areas through participatory

planning.

$ Good public participation and ensuring regular communication with all the wards

(Nel, 2017).

Stemming from the previous SDF, the following can be argued as recent spatial

mishaps in planning: the continuous growth of gated developments to the south of the

N1 and the decentralised regional shopping centre, Paarl Mall, adjacent to the N1 in

Paarl South. DM has specifically been mentioned in the 2014 WCPSDF in terms of

the impact of decentralised office and business nodal developments. Paarl Mall is a

regional shopping centre with a shopping floor area of around 37 000 m², with 95

stores and 1 915 parking spots. The mall opened in 2005. The plan to build Paarl Mall

started in 2000 with the application to Drakenstein Municipality for rezoning the land

from industrial use to a special business zone to make the building of the mall possible.

At the time, the planning department stated to the Financial Mail that the CBD would

be revived when Paarl Mall was completed. The first signs of such a plan came to the

fore after 2010, when a partnership agreement was entered into between the

municipality and private owners in Lady Grey Street to improve pavements and

parking areas, which comprised the main policy for urban renewal (Venema, 2016).

However, real satisfactory results failed to appear (DM, 2015). According to Venema

(2016), there is also no evidence of an impact study to justify that there would be no

effect on the CBD when the mall was built. In hindsight, the WCPSDF (2014:72)

suggested that “when designed, planned and located appropriately, commercial and

office developments will assist in improving the economic performance, usability,

attractiveness and experiential quality of the town centre. ‘In centre’ and ‘edge of

centre’ developments are the recommended location for new large-scale

commercial/retail developments having the least negative and most positive impacts

to the town centre and town as a whole.”

A number of what the SDF calls ‘strategic game changers’ are contained within the

spatial concept and represent a significant shift from the 2010 SDF. These strategic

proposals are:

$ A focus on mixed-use infill development (targeted approach).

$ Enabling a wide range of housing opportunities.

$ Promotion of education and sport through the provision and upgrading of strategic

facilities.

$ The integration of residential developments into a more mixed-use neighbourhood

in Paarl South.

$ The establishment of new road linkages between Paarl East and Paarl West.

$ The development of a green industry incubator park at Klapmuts.

$ The consolidation and expansion of the Wellington Industrial Park including a

waste-to-energy, green industry park.

$ The development of a logistics hub in Ben Bernhard (DM, 2015:31).


Regarding spatial targets, 17 high priority projects are identified with clear timeframes

attached to these which are to be aligned with the IDP process and other relevant

sector plans (Box 1).

BOX 1: HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS

FA1.1 De Poort and Paarl Hamlet Precinct Plan Long Term (5–10 years); Drakenstein Municipality De Poort Board of

Directors (Task Team); Drakenstein Local Tourism Association (DLTA).

FA1.4 Paarl Waterfront and Arboretum Precinct Plan Short to Medium Term (3–7 years); Drakenstein Municipality, Paarl

CBD Partnership, DLTA.

FA2.1 Klein Drakenstein Road Central Improvement District Plan Short to Medium Term (5–7 years); Drakenstein

Municipality.

FA2.4 Huguenot Station Precinct Plan Short Term (2–5 years); Drakenstein Municipality Paarl CBD Partnership DLTA.

FA2.6 VPUU Priority Projects Roll-Out Short to Long Term (ongoing) (2–10 years); Drakenstein Municipality VPUU.

FA3.1 Roggeland Precinct Plan Short to Medium Term (3–6 years); Drakenstein Municipality SAHRA Heritage Western

Cape.

FA3.2 Mbekweni Station Precinct Plan Short Term (2–4 years), Drakenstein Municipality.

FA3.5 Mbekweni NMT Plan Short to Medium Term (2–10 years), Drakenstein Municipality.

FA4.2 Wellington CBD Urban Design Framework Medium to Long Term (5–20 years), Drakenstein Municipality.

FA4.4 Wellington Heritage Management Plan Short Term (2–4 years), Drakenstein Municipality Heritage Western Cape.

FA4.5 Wellington Urban River Plan Short to Medium Term (2–6 years); Drakenstein Municipality WC DEDAT Local

community and land owners.

FA5.1 Paarl South Floodline Study Short to Medium Term (2–4 years), Drakenstein Municipality Private land owners.

FA5.2 Paarl South New Public Road Link Short to Medium Term (3–6 years), Drakenstein Municipality.

FA6.1 Simondium New Rural Village Precinct Plan Short to Medium Term (5–8 years), Drakenstein Municipality.

FA11.1 Gouda Transport Logistics Hub Short to Medium (5–10 years), Drakenstein Municipality Private Developer(s).

FA12.1 Saron Heritage Core Precinct Plan Short to Medium (2–6 years), Drakenstein Municipality, Private Developer(s).

FA12.2 Saron Heritage Festival (Leiwater Festival) Short Term (annual), Drakenstein Municipality DLTA.

Figure 15 shows the spatial distribution of these high priority projects and it is clear

that there is no definite over-representation in certain spaces. These priority areas

were submitted to the DM Council for funding and approval, but not all have been

approved and these are at present in the process to be aligned with the IDP and the

revised SDF. Funding has, however, been cut. Strategic identification of spatial

investment priority zones (priority areas) are primarily done from within the spatial

planning department. Additional projects for subsequent timeframes are shown on the

implementation matrices for each focus area (DM, 2015). A number of these are

precinct plans that emphasises a focus on urban renewal. (The SDF makes provision

for the development of precinct plans for focus areas.) The urban renewal of the

business areas in Paarl and Wellington is a priority. The DM Council has concluded a

Public Private Partnership Agreement with a private sector investor for the

redevelopment and upgrading of the Paarl CBD. In addition, the Southern Paarl

Precinct, the Huguenot Interchange and the Wellington CBD have been identified as

priority areas for urban renewal (DM, 2012:50).


DM (2015:136)

Figure 15: High priority project distribution

“Like almost all South African municipalities, Drakenstein municipality cannot raise

enough finance to provide the infrastructure that is required to eradicate backlogs,

allow for growth and renew the existing infrastructure base. The size of the funding

gap that will be faced will depend on how growth takes place: what will household and

economic growth rates be, and will economic growth be sufficiently high to

accommodate household growth? The need for infrastructure spending can be

reduced somewhat by adopting a more compact urban form” (DM, 2015:47). For this

densification as future growth scenario, “a Municipal Services Financial Model (MSFM)

was run for Drakenstein Municipality as part of the preparation of the SDF in order to

quantify the impact that different spatial decisions make on the need for capital

expenditure in the municipality, the extent to which there is sufficient finance available

to cover this expenditure, and the impact that the capital expenditure is likely to have

on the operating budget” (DM, 2015:45). The cost of developing, for instance ‘gap

housing’, with land prices and services is too high to be profitable for the free market

(Nel, 2017).


Furthermore, on the issue of land, there is sufficient municipal-owned land in the right

places to address restructuring and spatial transformation but the political will to do so

is lacking. The municipality does not have the budget to purchase land in areas with

high land values to provide housing, taxi ranks and social facilities for workers in those

areas. While the provincial government owns some suitable land, the process of

transferring the land is tedious. It often takes so long that by the time the land is

transferred it may have been invaded, and dealing with the squatters requires another

long process. Local authority priorities are not the same as the priorities of other

department, for example the DRDLR was offered land that was suitably located to

accommodate workers who had been evicted from farms that is a priority for the

municipality, but it is not the DRDLR’s priority – thus the opportunity could slip away.

Other land is not available or too expensive (Nel, 2017).

Why is the municipality struggling to address the obstacles?

• Red tape and complicated processes of land transfer between spheres of

government.

• The public’s attitude and fears.

• Municipal government not being proactive enough.

• Lack of budget to implement transformation (on the scale needed).

• No need to find new ways of doing things as the ways it were done, has not yielded

the results that is needed (Nel, 2017).

There is a sentiment shared by numerous stakeholders that the SDF is ‘above the

understanding’ of the finance department. The town planning department will embark

in 2017/18 on a SDF marketing strategy within the municipality, to make the different

sections aware of the importance thereof, as well as how to think spatially, financially

and holistically in terms of engineering space. Although the SDF does have a

monitoring system in terms of reference, there is no real up-to-date integrated system

for monitoring. Monitoring takes place by means of note taking and keeping these

notes in a file on the shelf.

As indicated earlier, the new integrated zoning scheme has not yet been implemented,

but in the process in preparing one, the department of land use first need to consult

with the SDF. The DM has a number of policies in place that will support the SDF

proposals and these include the following: Paarl Farms Land Use Management Policy

(2005); Densification and Urbanisation Strategy and Open Space Utilisation Policy

(2006); Informal Settlement Strategy and Programme (2014); Environmental

Management Framework (2012); Student Accommodation Policy2 (2017). In order for

the SDF to successfully achieve some of its objectives, a number of new policies have

2It is interesting to note that DM has identified the educational economy as a growth sector for the municipality and suggested that the problems and challenges related to student housing and its impacts on urban space (studentification of space) be investigated with a view to providing input to the LUMS and detailed spatial planning for areas under pressure for delivering more student accommodation such as in Wellington. New student housing typologies evolving in Stellenbosch are to be considered, yet these typologies are not without their own problems, especially how they impact on urban space (DM, 2017).


been identified, namely the strategy for the provision of serviced sites; formalisation of

backyard structures; urban renewal/regeneration policy; and sporting economy

strategy. In addition to policies, the DM has recently commissioned a number of

guidelines and by-laws that would support the implementation of the SDF: guidelines

and by-laws for the protection and management of Heritage Overlay Zones and

Heritage Resources; Land Use Management System (Integrated Zoning Scheme);

Provision of Engineering Infrastructure and Services (development charges); and Peri-

Urban Agrarian Reform Guidelines. Other than these policies, there is no specific

spatial transformation implementation strategy and it is not on the agenda to create

such a policy in the near future.

Drakenstein is categorised as a developing or growing municipality and as a result,

will require significant additional resources and funding to conduct the growth that is

expected. The municipality set itself out to implement a comprehensive five-year

capital investment plan (CIP) which would be updated annually with a potential of

extending it to twenty years to ensure “that bulk infrastructure services and internal

infrastructure services together with the foreseen funding sources are planned in an

integrated and coordinated manner” (DM, 2012:151). The municipality make all capital

improvements in accordance with the CIP and IDP. The content of the Capital

Infrastructure Policy (only a two-page policy document!) is vague and does not speak

to the IDP and SDF.

The development of a “capital prioritisation model to identify the capital projects to be

implemented with scarce available financial resources that will have the biggest impact

in improving the quality of life of Drakenstein’s customer base” (DM, 2012:150), can

be considered the most significant transformation tool. As stated in the IDP of 2012:

“The model’s criteria will have four focus areas, i.e. IDP strategic objectives, services

master plan objectives, project dynamics and project consequences. To each of these

criteria and elements per criteria will be allocated weights still to be determined by

Council” (DM, 2012:150). In the interim, a subjective approach was followed to

determine the capital investment programme. It needs to be noted that “national and

provincial government programmes and grant funding often influences the capital

investment programme of Drakenstein. This is something that the municipality has

little control over” (DM, 2012:150). T

he Prioritisation Model for Capital Assets Investment was approved by Council in 2015

and all prioritised capital projects will now be classified in the five-year capital assets

investment programme. This model makes provision for a rating system where each

infrastructure category will have its own rating criteria. Each capital project will be

evaluated against these rating criteria to determine if the capital project affects the

rating criteria. If so, the capital project will score a single point. Each rating criteria will

also have a weight attached to it and the total points a capital project will earn, will

determine its importance to influence the inclusion of the capital project into the capital

budget for the next financial year. One of the rating categories is whether a capital


expenditure/project complies with the developmental directions of the municipality’s

spatial development framework. This category’s weight is 5 out of 100. Other rating

categories and their weights are as follows: statutory requirement (10); service delivery

(12); essential service (8); economic stimulation (8); community benefit (5); permanent

job creation (8); labour intensive construction (7); revenue generating (12); aesthetical

improvement (5); social upliftment (5); risk factor (10), and time factor (5). A

Development and Investment Forum has recently been established within the office of

the municipal manager.

In addition, an indigent policy oversees the mechanisms to determine who qualifies as

an indigent household and the level of free basic services enjoyed by indigent

households. The development and review of a writing-off of an irrecoverable debt

policy with an incentive scheme to encourage outstanding debtors to pay a certain

percentage of their outstanding debt and for the municipality to write-off a certain

percentage of outstanding debt, were done in the first quarter of the 2012/13 financial

year.

7. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The national policy intent is very clear on spatial transformation: to build inclusive,

productive, sustainable and well-governed cities (SACN, 2016:48). However, since

1994 there has been mixed progress in addressing spatial injustice and socio-

economic inequality. The following paraphrased and quoted remarks show a striking

resemblance of the lessons learnt from various other case studies and those reported

on in the State of South African Cities Report (SACN, 2016:49-51) and what is

experienced in DM:

$ The spatial and sector plans “lack spatial trend analyses, future projections or

spatial implications of development scenarios” as well as an implementation

monitoring strategy.

$ “Spatial priorities are driven by sector targets and catalytic projects, each with its

own spatial investment logic, rather than by an integrated spatial strategy and

programme.”

$ The potential impact of interventions by the neighbouring municipality of

Stellenbosch in Klapmuts was not evaluated, yet it is seen as alleviating their own

pressures.

$ The SDF seems to “remain focused on managing expected land-use change driven

by the private sector, rather than on coordinating intergovernmental investment,

spatial prioritisation and integrated spatial development strategies, or influencing

the spatial investment logic of different sector strategies/line departments”.

$ Most of the focus area spatial plans do not “include investment plans of the private

sector, other government agencies or civil society and the municipal spatial


priorities do not appear to guide those of national and provincial functional sectors

or even municipal line departments”.

In so far as continued inefficient spatial developmental issues listed in the State of

South African Cities Report (SACN, 2016:49-51, paraphrased and quoted) are

concerned, the following are evident in the DM case:

$ “Lack of affordable accommodation close to economic opportunities, and the view

that informal dwellings/strategies are the only solution for the poor.”

$ On the one hand, public developments (Gap, RDP housing on the periphery)

reinforce city sprawl, resulting in inefficient and costlier infrastructure and services

and, on the other hand, private developments on the periphery (growth in these

higher-end peripheral developments, for example gated housing estates, cluster

housing complexes and eco estates) claim to be sustainable, but take up vast tracts

of open space and encourage the use of private vehicles.

$ The seemingly good location of the Mbekweni township (which is strategically

located between Wellington and Paarl) has not necessarily translated into vastly

improved livelihood prospects for its residents, other than pockets of housing

developments.

$ The regional mall was built around a “car-captive audience, requiring space for

parking and vehicle traffic, and are less flexible and diverse than high street-style

developments.”

$ “The cost of fragmentation in addition to its social and political implications, the

current spatial form has serious cost implications for the state, urban residents and

the environment.” The leapfrog type developments taking place in DM and those

planned for impact on residents because “the fragmented and peripheral locations

mean that they spend more time and money on transport”.

In the DM case, the powerful lobby group such as the heritage associations, have played a crucial role in driving the conservation of the built environment agenda. This is indeed a big plus for the DM SDF. In South Africa, the built environment is often considered unimportant in spatial planning strategies.

The bulky SDF (139 pages, excluding annexures) meets almost all the required tick

boxes of what should be in an SDF. It may come across that there is sufficient focus

on the key issues in the SDF, but in the same sense it seems to be dispersed across

too many issues. It depends on how the text is read. Perhaps aligning the IDP and

budgets with priority SDF targets and developments would contribute to a reduction in

text and would be more realistic for implementation.

Transformation, however, on the other hand, is slow and mostly ill-conceived. They do

have the ideas for spatial restructuring, but translating them from ideas and plans to

change on the ground is difficult (Nel, 2017).


There is a misconception at the municipal Council that private developments are the

panacea for urban renewal and development as these private developments (mostly

gated and reinforcing spatial segregation) bring in money for the DM. There is

uncertainty (because it has not yet been quantified) as to whether such private

developments are actually bringing in real investment for the DM. The size of these

gated developments (Figure 4 & 5), their actual number of dwelling units to the south

of the N1, and the environmental and economic cost of these developments have to

be quantified first before the DM Council will understand the spatial logic of

development. However, the DM is not capable of doing such costing and it seems as

if any such plans to do so, are blocked. It seems to be, at the instruction of senior

management, that development should be seen as planning-led development.

Finance and other relevant departments are now starting to take the SDF into

consideration in guiding their planning. As one participant stated, “they are not fully

there yet”. The main spatial transformation issues have been mostly diagnosed but

this is understood within clear shortcomings of implementation. How politics and the

private sector influence and drive the transformation project, appears to be the main

stumbling block. Making these problems central to the SDF document will not be met

with Council’s approval, hence they are not highlighted.

It is evident from discussions with the participants that the three scenarios postulated

upfront are indeed true:

$ The DM has so far relied mainly on getting plans done and less on thinking hard

about how to implement them.

$ The DM does not effectively use IDPs to spatially coordinate their own activities or

those of other spheres regarding investment. (This is at least true for the 2015 SDF

– the 2017 review document [not the focus of this study] made a dedicated attempt

to better align the SDF and IDP.)

$ There is a limited appreciation in DM of the implementation tools that SPLUMA has

brought to the table and limited progress in giving effect to SPLUMA. The town

planners have an appreciation for SPLUMA and understand its purpose, but the

underlying dynamic of political forces and private developers to curtail such spatial

planning practices and principles are derailing the actual implementation thereof.

These three hypotheses speak directly to three main areas of SDF quality that need

to be addressed before major spatial transformation issues can be addressed/taken

care of. Personal judgement and after the conversations with participants, it can be

stated that spatial transformation, with the emphasis here on transformation, does not

seem to be a priority of the DM.


REFERENCE LIST

Cameron, R. 1999. The democratisation of South African local government: A tale of

three cities. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Drakenstein Heritage Survey Group, 2010

Penfold, J. 2011. Drakenstein GIS heritage management system. PositionIT,

Nov/Dec. 2011. EE Publishers. Available at http://www.ee.co.za/wp-

content/uploads/legacy/posit11/PositionIT_nov-dec11-Pro_38-42.pdf

Drakenstein Municipality. 2010. Amended Spatial Development Framework (SDF) for

the Drakenstein Municipality. Macroplan, Volume 2. Durbanville: Town and Regional

Planners & Architects. Available at

http://www.drakenstein.gov.za/Administration/Documents/Documents%20For%20Citi

zen%20Viewing/IDP/2013%20-%202018/Spatial%20Development%20Framework/

Spatial%20Development%20Framework%20-%2024%20Nov%202010%20-

%20Vol%202.pdf

Drakenstein Municipality. 2012. Integrated Development Plan (IDP) 2012-2017.

Paarl: Drakenstein Municipality. Available at

http://www.drakenstein.gov.za/Administration/Documents/Documents%20For%20Citi

zen%20Viewing/IDP/2012-2017/IDP%202012-

2017%20MM%20%2017%20Aug%202012.pdf

Drakenstein Municipality. 2015. Spatial Development Framework. A spatial vision

20152035. Final Report. Available at

http://www.drakenstein.gov.za/Residents/Spatial%20Planning/Documents/Spatial%2

0Development%20Framework/150925%20DSDF%20Final%20report.pdf

Drakenstein Municipality. 2016. Drakenstein zoning scheme. Phase 2: Research

report (P02/2014) Compilation of Drakenstein Land Use Management Scheme. Paarl:

Drakenstein Municipality.

Drakenstein Municipality. 2017. Student accommodation policy. Available from:

http://www.drakenstein.gov.za/Administration/Policies/Documents/Student%20Acco

mmodation%20Policy-Council%20Adopted%2020170329.pdf

Google Earth. Volledige link na die spesifieke kaart.

Lottering, N., Du Plessis, D. & Donaldson, R. 2015. Coping with drought: The

experience of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) in the George Municipality. Water

SA 41(1):1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v41i1.1

Nel, V. 2017. Notes from interview with Anthea Shortles, Senior spatial planner at the

Municipality. Conducted 17/3/2017 12.03–12.50


RSA (Republic of South Africa). 1998. Local Government: Municipal Structures Act,

Act 117 of 1998. Cape Town: Government Printer.

RSA CoGTA (Republic of South Africa. Department of Cooperative Governance and

Traditional Affairs). 2016. Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF). Pretoria.

RSA EDD (Republic of South Africa. Department of Economic Development), The

National Social Dialogue and Strategic Frameworks Programme, and the South

African Cities Network (SACN). 2013. Reflections on the “Spatial Transformation of

the City”, 29 January 2013. Available at http://www.economic.gov.za/knowledge-

networks/377-spatial-planning

RSA (Republic of South Africa). Department: National Treasury. 2016. Drakenstein.

Available at http://www.Municipalmoney.gov.za [Accessed on 24 April 2017]

SACN (South African Cities Network). 2014. Spatial transformation of cities:

Conference report, 4-6 March 2014. Available at

http://www.jda.org.za/docs/spatial_transformation_conf_report.pdf

SACN. 2015. SPLUMA as a tool for spatial transformation.

http://sacitiesnetwork.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/SPLUMA-as-a-tool-for-

spatial-transformation_final-_April2015.pdf.

SACN (South African Cities Network). 2016. Chapter 2: The spatial transformation of

South Africa’s cities: From abstract concept to meaning and means. In State of South

African Cities Report 2016. Johannesburg SACN. Available at

http://www.socr.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SoCR16-Main-Report-online.pdf

South African History Online. 2012. Paarl. Available at

http://www.sahistory.org.za/places/paarl

Statistics South Africa. 2011. Census 2011. Pretoria.

Van Niekerk, A., Du Plessis, D., Spocter, M., Ferreira, S., Donaldson, R., Loots, L.,

Boonzaaier, I., Janeke, D. and Terhoven, Q. 2014. Growth potential study. Western

Cape Government: Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. Available at

https://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp/sites/default/files/your-resource-

library/2014%20Growth%20Potential%20Study%20of%20Towns%20(GPS).pdf

[Accessed on 25 April 2017]

Venema, J. 2016. Retail transformations and consumer preferences in Paarl and

Stellenbosch: CBD versus decentralised mall. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of

Geography and Environmental Studies, Stellenbosch University.

http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/100235

Western Cape Government. 2014. Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development

Framework. Cape Town: Environmental & Spatial Planning, Western Cape

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. Available at


https://www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp/sites/eadp.westerncape.gov.za/files/your-

resource-

library/2014%20Provincial%20Spatial%20Development%20Framework%20%28PSD

F%29_0.pdf

Western Cape Government, Provincial Treasury. 2015a. Socio-economic profile:

Drakenstein Municipality 2015. Working Paper. Cape Town: Western Cape Provincial

Treasury. Available at

https://www.westerncape.gov.za/assets/departments/treasury/Documents/Socio-

economic-profiles/2016/municipality/Cape-Winelands-

District/wc023_drakenstein_2015_sep-lg_profile.pdf

Western Cape Government, Provincial Treasury. 2015b. Municipal economic review

and outlook. Cape Town: Western Cape Provincial Treasury. Available at

https://www.westerncape.gov.za/assets/departments/treasury/Documents/2015_mer

o_final_to_web_9_october_2015.pdf

Williams 2000. South Africa: Urban transformation. Cities 17(3): 167–183.

Interviews were conducted with:

Anthea Shortles, Manager, Spatial Planning.

Ashley Roelf, senior town planner.

Cindy Winter, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning.

Dirk Breytenbach, Paarl Business Chamber.

Eunice Smit, former DM employee who did a study on urban edges in Paarl in 2008.

Louis Schlechter, assistant town planner.

Johan Miller, Chairperson of the planning and economic development committee.

Schalk Van Heerden, MA Urban Planning student at University of Cape Town, who is

working together with planning students to assist the municipality in the SDF for

specific areas.


ANNEXURE A SPLUMA SHORTCOMINGS

SPLUMA shortcomings in DM • Is mention made of how the land use scheme should promote/encourage redress?

• Inclusion: Does the SDF specifically include informal settlements, areas of poverty/deprivation and the rural part of

the municipality?

• Is mention made of mechanisms or development procedures or provisions in the land use scheme to promote secure

tenure for all and the incremental upgrading of informal settlements?

• Is mention made that the provisions of the land use scheme should be sufficiently flexible and appropriate for the

various forms of settlement in the municipality and specifically informal settlements, and areas of poverty/

deprivation?

• Is there an attempt to quantify the land demand for specific land uses, and the supply of this land (land

allocations) given the constraints imposed by the SDF?

• Do the proposals take current and future costs into account – such as incremental extensions, operational costs (e.g.

staffing) or maintenance – in respect of both infrastructure and social services?

• Will the SDF proposals encourage the functioning of an equitable land market with a variety of choices in type and

price of property for all income groups?

• Do the proposals in the SDF, or the SDF itself, seek to optimise existing resources or infrastructure in the municipal

areas?

• Is there any mention of decision-making processes to minimise the negative impacts (social, economic, financial,

environmental, etc.) of the SDF recommendations in terms of interventions and land use proposals?

• Is there any mention of creating efficient, expeditious and streamlined land use management processes?

• Do the proposals in the plan seek to limit negative impacts of economic or environmental hazards (particularly of poor

or otherwise vulnerable communities)?

• Is there mention of flexibility of policy, etc. to promote sustainable livelihoods (e.g. food gardening, home-based and

small businesses)?

• Does the SDF clearly set out the policies, legislation and procedures that must be followed in drafting and adopting the

plan?

• Does this SDF set out how the public participation process was conducted, and how this process affected the

formulation of the SDF?

• To what extent does the SDF contain all the elements required of a municipal SDF as per §12 & 21 of SPLUMA (as

listed below?

o Give effect to norms and principles

o Spatial representation of a five-year spatial plan

o Five-year employment trends, estimates of economic activity and its location

o Possible inclusionary housing areas

o Incremental upgrading areas

o Areas where land development processes should be applied

o Spatial depiction of integration/alignment of municipal policies, plan and strategies

o A capital expenditure framework – depicted spatially:

− Sectoral requirements, including budgets and resources − Necessary amendments − Institutional arrangements for implementation − Specification of implementation targets, including dates and monitoring indicators − Arrangements for partnerships in implementation

o An implementation plan

o Represent the integration and trade-off between sector plans

o Integration of national, provincial and municipal plans in that space

o Address historical imbalances