Developers of big new residential and commercial properties in the Umhlanga area could be asked to make significant financial contributions to upgrade roads, water, sewage and other services because the existing infrastructure has almost reached full capacity.
Property developers planning to build any high-rise buildings may also be required to submit detailed impact studies and photographic models to demonstrate what effect their developments would have on the sea views, and shadowing effect on surrounding properties and public amenities.
Council officials are particularly concerned about sea-view interference and shadow impacts in the light of recent "worst-case" development planning scenarios, which indicate the possibility of skyscrapers as high as 56 storeys, if the present town-planning laws and floor-area ratios were to be amended to allow for densified development.
Continues Below ↓
This has emerged from recommendations in the Umhlanga Nodal Study, which was presented last week to members of the eThekwini Metro Council's local economic development committee.
It is believed that the developers of the proposed Pearls of Umhlanga luxury condominiums have already been asked to make financial contributions to upgrading some infrastructure in the area because of the scale of the proposed development, and associated impacts on public amenities.
The Umhlanga Nodal Study was initiated last year as a result of the Pearls project, and growing pressure from other developers to increase the scale of existing beachfront properties by amending the existing Umhlanga Town Planning Scheme.
According to a summarised version of the nodal study, there has been renewed interest in upgrading or building new properties in the popular beachfront resort.
However, recent assessments by Metro planners show that service infrastructure in Umhlanga has almost reached full capacity.
For example, a major new reservoir would be needed, while the existing McCauseland sewage pump station can only accommodate another 900 flats.
The stormwater system is also under strain, and most new developments would have to attenuate stormwater impacts on site.
Expensive new road upgrades would also be needed in the central area of Umhlanga.
"These assessments, therefore, indicated that considerable costs would be associated with the upgrade of infrastructure services in Umhlanga... These costs will need to be balanced against the benefits of densification, which would include an extended rates base, increased tourist numbers and therefore their contribution to the local economy, and the benefits to surrounding property owners in terms of increased property values. Associated service infrastructure costs and limitations will also need to be taken (into) account, and cost-sharing arrangements defined."
According to documents, which came to light during recent litigation between the developers of the Pearls project and the Umhlanga Residents Action Group, city officials have already entered into cost-sharing negotiations with Pearls representatives.
Municipal Manager Mike Sutcliffe said on Monday it was not possible for him to provide generalised "guesstimates" on the cost-sharing proposals, as this would have to be the subject of negotiation with individual developers.
However, Sutcliffe said cost-sharing was considered to be standard practice in some parts of South Africa, whereby developers were asked to absorb some of the cost of "negative externalities".
The Umhlanga Nodal Study was based on two scenario planning exercises.
The first, based on the take-up of existing rights by developers, suggested an extra 577 residential units or a densification of 24 percent, largely on two properties.
The second "worst-case" scenario was based on amending the existing town planning scheme from a floor area ratio of 0:9, to a new floor area ratio of 2:0. This could create more than 3 000 new residential units and increase densification by 124 percent.
This scenario could result in new buildings ranging from 21 to 56 storeys high, with impacts considered to be "colossal and overbearing" from the perspective of blocking or interfering with sea views, or creating significant shadow impacts on public swimming and recreation areas.
The study notes that there has been an increase in litigation from property owners concerned about the loss of sea views, while new buildings which created significant shadows could discourage tourists and visitors.
"The study, therefore, recommends that development in Umhlanga should be limited both in height and linear extent to minimise shadow impacts. Developers should be required to submit accurate shadow projections with their development proposals."
The impact of shadows was seen as particularly significant in Umhlanga because exisiting developments were right on the beach, unlike the Durban beachfront, where buildings were set further back.
- This article was originally published on page 1 of The Mercury on September 19, 2006
|
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Delicious
Newsvine
Facebook
muti
Twitter
