AS OUTLINE IN THE APPLICATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 26 OF THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY LAW, 2016, AS AMENDED 2023, FOR THE TOWNSHIP ESTABLISHMENT ON PORTIONS 246 AND 247 OF THE FARM BRAAMFONTEIN 53-IR – NO REFERENCE NUMBER PROVIDED BY APPLICANT

The Emmarentia Residents’ Association (ERA) hereby objects to the above application. The ERA is a
long-standing Residents’ Association and has an interest in, and strong bona fides for the planning and
development of the suburb for and with our residents. This interest includes ensuring that our suburb
is not prejudiced by the impact of developments in nearby areas.
Our understanding is that application is to establish a township on two portions of farmland that are
owned by the City of Johannesburg and are zoned Public Open Space. The proposed sites also include
part of the Braamfontein Spruit, which part is designated as a critical biodiversity area on City Plans.
We are aware that the City has had difficulties implementing its bylaws on the illegal occupation and
the protection and management of its Public Open Space (POS) zoned land, which resulted in the sites
having illegal occupants and the consequential ecological degradation of parts of the sites. These sites
were the former Parkhurst Bowls Club.

1) While the ERA is objecting to this specific application, as advertised for public comment, it is not
opposed to the appropriate development of part of the site in the future. We recognise that the sites
are part of an important network of public and natural open spaces that traverse across Emmarentia
(and Melville, Greenside, Linden, Parkhurst) and are of benefit to local residents, to the wider
ecosystem and to future generations, but that parts of these sites, possibly those portions which were
previously developed as the bowls club, may be suitable for a sustainable infill development, in
keeping with the local area.
On this basis, ERA submits the following key points of objection to the application, as advertised. We
note that these are summarised points and reasons, and we reserve our right to elaborate more fully
on these at the Tribunal hearing and to add further points.

1. The location of the development is unsuitable for the rights applied for: This means that the
   type of development intended through the exercise of the proposed rights is not suitable for
   the site. The reasons for this include:
   a) that the application sites are not located on a main arterial or key transit route which
   would be required for a regional shopping centre and housing development of this
   scale;
   b) that the location of the site adjacent to public open spaces to the north and south, a
   low density Residential 1 row of houses along the east boundary and a gated office
   park to the west, making this a low key, largely residential area;
   c) The location of the site as part of a greenbelt indicates that the extent of the rights
   applied for should take cognisance of this open space context;
   d) That the locational context shows that within a radius of 2,5km, there are already
   several shopping facilities including Victory Park Shopping Centre, the proposed
   Greenwood Square Shopping Centre, the Greenside Shopping Strip along Gleneagles
   Road, the Greenside Shopping Centre, the Parkhurst Village, and the Emmarentia
   local Shopping node at Greenhill Road;
   e) The application to include 4-storey residential units abutting a low-height, single
   Residential (Residential 1 zoning) area is contrary to City planning policies and
   guidelines.
2. The scale of the development is neither necessary nor in keeping with the area: While the
   nature of the rights applied for are not in keeping with the location as mentioned in Point 1
   above, the scale or intensity of the rights applied for are also not appropriate for the sites:
   a) Erf 1 is only 26 306m2 in extent, and the application is for 25 000m2 of Gross Leasable
   Area for business zoning. This is excessive for the site, given that the ground
   conditions do not allow for any basement parking and parking is to be
   accommodated;
   b) Likewise, the application on Erf 2 for affordable housing at 200 units per hectare is
   not in keeping with its surrounds, nor is this density aligned to City planning policies.
   c) It is unclear why the sites require such excessive rights given that there is a functional
   hierarchy of shopping centres already operating in the wider Region and this will this
   development does not fit with this, resulting in a disruptive, negative impact on this
   hierarchy which will undoubtedly negatively impact the existing urban fabric,
   including the local Emmarentia shopping areas.
3. The rights applied for are inaccurate, confusing and unsuitable for the development: the
   application has several inconsistencies, making it difficult to understand exactly what is being
   applied for, in terms of the land use rights and development concept:
   a) Specialist reports describe the development differently (e.g. the geotechnical report
   says 2 storey walk-ups for the residential component and single storey shopping, but
   the application says ‘as per scheme’ which allows 2 storey Business 1); Also, Erf 2
   cannot achieve 4 storeys if the as per scheme conditions in the application are
   applied)
   b) The land uses applied for are not all defined in the Johannesburg Land Use Scheme –
   a drive through taxi rank is not in the scheme; plant nursery is also not in the scheme;
   c) Certain rights applied for as primary rights are not compatible with Business 1 uses –
   builders yard uses are found in Industrial zones: ERA cannot support such an anomaly
   that will introduce industrial-related uses into our wider, mostly residential area;
   d) No attempt is made to tailor any of the land uses to the site: ERA objects to the
   inclusion of land uses such as motor car sales lots, motor showrooms, warehousing,
   funeral parlour and shebeen/tavern either as primary or secondary rights. These need
   to be specifically excluded;
   e) Floor area, coverage and density calculation are confusing and obscure: ERA has tried
   unsuccessfully to do the calculations for these. The application should simply explain
   these more clearly so that everyone understands the extent of the rights applied for;
   f) NO draft conditions of establishment are included which would confirm more clearly
   the development intentions and the conditions that will direct the development. This
   is an unprofessional omission;
   g) The exclusion of covered parking from the coverage is not supported: the overall site
   is environmentally sensitive and to cover the extent proposed with covered, paved
   parking areas will be detrimental to the area, affecting not only the environmental
   aspects of stormwater runoff but the site’s amenity (and its compliance with the
   Bylaw Section 5).
   h) The parking requirements as applied for, are not aligned to the Land Use Scheme and
   unlikely to be met on site;
   i) Importantly, both sites are the subject of a township establishment application, yet
   no attempt is made to subdivide the open space areas from the ‘development
   portions’, resulting in 2 erven that were zoned Public Open Space now being
   designated as Business 1 and Residential 3. No consideration is given to subdividing
   off the sensitive floodline, riverine and critical biodiversity areas and keeping them
   zoned as Public Open Space to protect them and bring greater coherence to the
   development intent and rights applied for. On this basis alone, the application should
   fail.
4. The Motivational Memorandum is inadequate in providing accurate and necessary
   information. There are several shortcomings in the Motivational Memorandum including:
   a) The absence of any motivation of the NEED for this land use in this location as required
   by the Bylaw Section 5. This is a peremptory legal requirement, not a request.
   b) There is NO empirical evidence provided on the nearby shopping facilities, their floor
   areas and composition and target market segment to support any need for additional
   retail facilities;
   c) By the same token, there is NO evidence provided that the local area requires this
   amount, typology and density of housing at this location;
   d) There is NO motivation for the need for the drive through taxi rank or the plant
   nursery;
   e) There is NO evidence provided that this development will not affect the amenity of
   the surrounding area, as required in Section 5 of the Bylaw.
5. The application was not a complete application, as required, when submitted: This
   contravention is distressing to residents who need to comment on the application within a
   short period and had to wait to obtain the full set of reports.
   a) ERA had to request the title deeds which did not seem to form part of the application;
   b) The Traffic Impact Study and the Outline Scheme Report were only sent to interested
   parties well into the advertising period;
   c) The application includes no market study which would be necessary for a shopping
   centre of this magnitude.
6. The application cannot be approved as certain title deed restrictions remain:
   a) The application incorrectly states that there are NO title deed restrictions and as a
   result does not include a (simultaneous) removal of restrictions application;
   b) The land forming the river and adjacent riverine land has rights in favour of another
   party;
   c) The use of the land is for recreational purposes only.
7. The application will seriously impact the traffic circulation patterns, affecting Emmarentia
   and the whole western sector of Johannesburg:
   a) Tana Road – Victory Road form a crucial part of the east-west traffic network in
   Johannesburg. These links are very weak compared to the north-south network
   (Oxford/Jan Smuts/Barry Hertzog/Beyers Naude) and subject to increasing congestion
   and need to continue to provide this function unimpeded;
   b) A development such as this will add significant traffic at this point, to the route,
   contrary to its function as a link road to move traffic east-west;
   c) The Traffic Impact Study, recognises the failing intersections of Tana and Victory roads
   with Barry Hertzog Ave, indicating a high impact once the development is completed,
   yet insignificant measures are proposed to address this problem;
   d) The Traffic Impact Study and the application propose a hypothetical, speculative (and
   probably highly impractical) additional entrance onto Rustenburg Road (Barry Hertzog
   Ave) to serve the development. This may well be required and will seriously impact
   on the traffic flow to and from Emmarentia and be unsafe for all users of this section
   of Barry Hertzog Avenue, if implemented. It would seem that the developer would
   not make contributions to any road improvements.
8. ERAs is opposed to any development in Emmarentia and surrounding areas that will put
   additional strain on municipal infrastructure services: the application is misleading and
   lacking in any accurate information on the services in the area:
   a) The residents of Emmarentia and Greenside have had to suffer inordinate deprivation
   of services over the past 3 years, due to failures of supply and maintenance by the
   City. The City should not support any application without clear evidence that it will
   not negatively impact existing residents and businesses;
   b) Victory Park, Greenside, Parkhurst are areas that were established back to the 1940’s
   and early 1950’s so the existing infrastructure is 70 – 80 years’ old and may not be
   able to support the additional stress, even if the capacity is sufficient.
   The Emmarentia Residents’ Association is appreciative of the opportunity to comment on this
   application. Unfortunately, in its current form the application has several fatal flaws, in addition to
   lacking any sound town planning merits for it to be supported by ERA.
   ERA reserves its rights to present more detailed reasons in due course and remains committed to
   supporting development in our area that is sustainable and results in the improved quality of life for our residents and neighbouring communities.
   Gemey Abrahams – Professional Planner A/1270/2003
   The Emmarentia Residents’ Association (ERA)
   The Head of the Planning
   Building and Heritage Portfolio of EXCO
   Tel: 082 459 5266
   gemeyabrahams60@gmail.com
   On behalf of Saber Manjoo
   Chairman
   Emmarentia Residents’ Association
   tel: 084 799 7860
   saber@directrewards.co.za
   ERA email contact: info@era.org.za
   cc. nicolene@ward88jhb.net