Village Square Signage - St Francis Bay Residents Association

The Residents’ Association has been in disagreement with the Kouga Municiplaity over a number of issues associated with the Village Square development. The Association is now faced with a negative local press. In view of this, we are publishing full details of our concerns regarding irregularities during the entire process, and specific objections to the ramp and signage now in place.

The Residents Association is being inundated with letters complaining about the Illuminated Signage on both sides of the Village Square. The Residents Association is looking into the matter.

The Residents’ Association objects to the interior-illuminated signage being used at the Village Square Shopping Centre, and especially that overlooking St Francis Drive. It should be borne in mind that The Village Square is situated on the very edge of the Business Activity Zone, and faces onto a residential area. As such, sensitivity is required in the design, positioning and intensity of advertising signage. However, the objection extends to the entire centre, which has bright interior- illuminated advertising signage along the new “Link” Road parking area, and on both sides of POS Erf 52. Light spillage from these signs extends well up the hill towards the Homestead. We are aware of many residents who are appalled at this intrusion on the previously restrained and tranquil character of the town. One resident asked why we need a lighthouse at Cape St Francis!

The developer will no doubt argue that advertising signage is normal on property which has business rights; that he has been authorised to use this signage; that the position will improve once all signs have been filled with advertising material, and not simply plain white as at present; and that there are other examples of illuminated signage on existing businesses along St Francis Drive. All of these may be correct.

However, The Village Square, by virtue of its size, has changed the character of the centre of the village, and we would argue that the developer should live up to his own claims regarding “commitment to the St Francis community and aesthetic” (Village Square Times, July, 2008 edition, front page para 1)

The Village Square now has a total of eleven illuminated flat signs on the outer wall of the Centre, overlooking St Francis Drive. They are approximately 2 metres by 75cm in area. During the day, these are relatively innocuous, but when they are illuminated at night, they have a similar effect to the chokka boats seen in the bay. The entire area is flooded with light. Erf 52 looks like a fairground at night, with illuminated signage on both sides.

In our view, this is a completely unacceptable sate of affairs. It is contrary to the developer’s own commitment, to the principles enshrined in the Spatial Development Plan for St Francis Bay, and to the signage regulations contained in The South African Manual for Outdoor Advertising Control (SAMOAC). It is unfair to the owners of residential property east of St Francis Drive, and changes the character of the centre of the village, from a relatively peaceful, low-key through road to a garish and brassy street, more suitable for Piccadily, or Las Vegas. The contrast with the neighbouring development by Trevor Tennant, which uses external lighting, with no loss of advertising value, is extremely marked. Why should such a radical change be foisted onto the community, in contravention of the Spatial Development Plan, without so much as a hint of public participation, simply to satisfy the commercial agenda of the developer?

In support of our argument, we would draw attention to some of the principles and guidelines contained in the Spatial Development Plan, and in SAMOAC.

Guideline 53 on p. 38 reads as follows:
Attention should be given to the scale and context to ensure that the residential area retains the current character and scale.
Although this clause refers to residential land, the same criteria should apply to land zoned for business where the latter abuts onto residential land. In this case, the Municipality enabled the developer to increase his lettable space by 67%, thus changing completely the scale of the development relative to its context. The motivation in guideline 53 is to ensure that the residential area retains its character. This cannot possibly be the case where the residential sector is flooded in bright advertising lighting, possibly throughout the night.

Guideline 55 on p.40, whilst encouraging the development of business nodes, does so to prevent the intrusion of business into the residential fabric. The principle contained here is quite clear: Business should not intrude into residential areas.

Guideline 58, p.41, contains a very specific clause:
The scale, character,design and colour of new buildings should reflect that of the surrounding residential fabric . . .
The question of scale has been raised above. That is now a fait accompli, and nothing can be done about it. However, the garish illuminations now in place cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be in character with the surrounding residential fabric. They should not be permitted.

Another clause in Guideline 58, referring to Section D on Fig 24, makes it clear that development for business purposes should be of a limited scale in order to blend with the surrounding residences. Once again,the same principle applies.

Conclusion on SDP
Any objective reading of the SDP makes it perfectly clear that the fundamental priority is to retain the character of residential areas. Where residential and business properties abut, retention of character of the residential areas is at least as important as the commercial agenda of business. One wonders whether anyone in the Town Planning Department ever consults the Spatial Development Plan.

This is the standard national guideline for local authorities in assessing the suitability of advertising. Relevant sections from this document are as follows:

2.3.3 Urban Landscape – Areas of maximum control (p. 48)

Character and Land Use
The following precincts are deemed sensitive to visual disturbance and shall be defined as urban areas of maximum control:

Residential
Exclusively residential areas for higher to middle income groups, mostly low-density single.

Objectives
- . . .to minimise visual disturbance caused by signs and to optimise visual harmony between sign and urban landscape;
- to protect urban areas . . .from visual degradation caused by outdoor advertising and to enhance such areas and facilities;
- to preserve the residential amenity of suburbs.

Appropriate sign opportunities
The size, illumination and position of advertisements should be strictly controlled, and all advertisements should be scrutinised according to well-developed and well- defined requirements. As all advertisements will affect the appearance of these visually sensitive buildings, structures or areas, it may be necessary to develop specific and more detailed conditions according to local circumstances and the character of specific urban areas of maximum control.

2.4.1 General Conditions and decency (p.58)

2.4.1.1 Amenity and decency

No sign, as permitted by SAMOAC, shall in the opinion of the Controlling officer:
i) be detrimental to . . .the amenity of a human living environment by reason of size, shape, colour, texture, intensity of illumination. . or for any other reason

2.4.1.3 Design and Construction
Any sign, as permitted by SAMOAC:
ii) shall, in the opinion of the Controlling Officer, not be detrimental or have a negative aesthetic impact on the urban design, streetscapes or the character of the surrounding area by way of the design of the structure or device.

Class 3 c) signs (p.102)
Consent requirements will be as follows:
Areas of maximum control: Specific consent in all areas of maximum control.

Conclusion on SAMOAC
It is very clear from SAMOAC that the local authority has a major responsibility to ensure that advertising signage used is appropriate to its context, and that the Building Control Officer carries considerable responsibility. In this case, this is a maximum controlled area, requiring specific consent. There is a clear responsibility to minimise visual disturbance and degradation, and to protect the residential amenity of suburbs. There is a requirement of strict control and scrutiny in terms of clearly defined criteria. Intensity of illumination is one of the factors which may be detrimental to the amenity of a human living environment..

It is not clear from SAMOAC who should act as arbiter should a community believe that a local authority has failed to implement the SAMOAC or SDP principles. In the current context, where on every single occasion the community has raised issues relating to the development, the Municipality has totally ignored the community and has favoured the developer, we do not have confidence in the will or capacity of the Municipality to make an objective assessment.

Proposal
We therefore propose that a suitably qualified and competent senior official from the appropriate Provincial Department of Local Government be appointed, to investigate the signage issue at The Village Square, and determine what level of illuminated signage is appropriate in the context of the Spatial Development Plan for St Francis Bay, and of SAMOAC. All affected parties, and especially property owners of Erven 24, 35, 34, 2298 & 2291, should be given the opportunity to express their point of view, and the ruling should be made strictly in terms of the SDP and SAMOAC.

Was specific consent, and written authorisation given by any Municipal official to permit the developer to install the signage in question, as is required in terms of Class 3 c) signs (p. 102 of SAMOAC)?

If so, please may we be supplied with a copy of the signed written authorisation, together with any conditions of authorisation.

If not, please will the authorities instruct the developer to remove the signs until such time as an appropriate form of signage has been approved.

Assuming that authorization was given, who was the Building Control Officer who signed the authorisation, and is that person qualified and competent to do so?

Was any thought at all given to the requirements of the SDP and SAMOAC?

Please could we be supplied with written reasons as to why the Building Control officer believes that the signage in questions conforms with Guidelines 53, 55 & 58 of the SDP.

Was the Building Control Officer aware that this is an area of maximum control, and the implications of this?

How does the BCO reconcile authorisation with the objectives of maximum control, as spelt out in section 2.3.3 of SAMOAC?

Please will the BCO explain in detail what scrutiny was given to the signage, and in terms of what well-developed and well-defined criteria, as is required in 2.3.3 of SAMOAC.

How does the BCO reconcile approval of the signage with sections 2.4.1.1 (detrimental to the amenity of a human environment) & 2.4.1.3 (no negative aesthetic impact) as outlined above?

The Residents’ Association accepts that some advertising signage is appropriate in such a context, but trusts that between the developer and the authorities a more community-friendly system will be devised. Whatever the decision, the residents on the opposite side of St Francis Drive should be canvassed for their views before any final decision is made.

H.B.Thorpe
Chairman, St Francis Bay Residents’ Association

1. Contrary to Spatial Development Plan
Access to and exit from erven 4 – 7, now the new Village Square complex, was originally intended to be from a Link Road, linking Lyme Road South and Assissi Drive. This is clearly demonstrated in Fig 24 of the Spatial Development Plan. No entry or exit points onto St Francis Drive were contemplated.
The reason for this is clearly enunciated on p. 59 of the SDP, under “Business”, which reads as follows:

“In St Francis Bay, one business node has developed to-date, and during the year functions relatively problem-free. Over the end-of-year holiday season the deficiencies in the functioning of the centre are highlighted.
These include:
Due to its location on St Francis Drive, this very important vehicle distributor becomes highly congested. Not only is it difficult to access the business node, but through traffic is also affected by the congestion around the node.
The linear shape of St Francis Bay, together with the fact that basic necessities are only available at this node, necessitates high trip generation, and relatively lengthy trips.”

Although the SDP does not elaborate on the reasons for the Link Road, it was clearly to avoid a repetition of this situation. The ramp onto the roof-top parking off St Francis Drive will precisely duplicate this traffic congestion problem. Whilst the current revision, which allows only traffic entry from the street, and then only from the south to north- bound lane, is a major improvement, we believe it will still cause congestion, since traffic seeking to enter the ramp will block the south-to-north-bound lane under peak traffic conditions. Furthermore, policing of this entry to ensure that cars approaching from the north do not enter across the north-bound lane will be difficult. The SDP has clearly been completely disregarded, both by the municipality and by the developer.

Furthermore, the Municipality neglected to require a Traffic Impact Assessment prior to their hasty and highly irregular approval of the building plans. Such a study is normal for developments on this scale, and could have avoided the issues now emerging. From the RA’s perspective, this is a major reason for objecting to the ramp.

2. Contravenes National Building Regulations
The ramp contravenes National Building Regulations, and is therefore illegal.
The interpreting body in connection with Building Regulations is the SA Bureau of Standards.
The RA approached the SABS directly , raising a number of questions. Two are relevant at this stage:

Q. If a shopping centre requires a ramp to rooftop parking from a street, can that ramp be constructed on the road reserve portion adjacent to the street, or must it be constructed on the shopping centre property?
A. The shopping centre has no right to build on the road reserve.The ramp should start on the property of the shopping centre, and must leave the road reserve with the required pedestrian walkway, so that accidents are avoided.

Q. Clause DD3 of the Building Regulations makes it clear that the first five metres of a ramp may not exceed a 1:25 gradient. Does a Municipality have the right to authorise a shorter 1:25 section?
A. The municipality does not have the right to disregard National Building Regulations by authorising a shorter 1:25 section.

In view of the fact that the entire ramp is constructed on road reserve, it is self-evident that it is illegal, and that the municipality has acted irregularly in disregarding Building Regulations by authorising the ramp. The developer should have known that the ramp has to be built on his own property, and his plans should have reflected this.

A difficulty here is that the ramp at the back of the complex is equally illegal, but the impact on St Francis Drive and on pedestrian safety are not the same, and the ramp is crucial to access to the roof-top parking. A possibility is that an application could be made to the SABS to condone the ramp onto the Link Road. on the grounds that the safety issues are not the same, and without this ramp, the entire roof-top parking would have to be abandoned, with consequent loss of parking for the town, and failure to comply with minimum parking requirements for such a development.

3 Traffic hazard
The ramp is situated towards the top of a blind rise. Even with the revised requirement of entry only, and only from the north-travelling lane, it is inevitable that under peak conditions, traffic waiting to access the ramp will build up, thus blocking completely the north-travelling lane. This is likely to lead to impatient behaviour by motorists wishing to continue along St Francis Drive, with the possibility of overtaking on the blind rise – a distinct hazard.

4. Unnecessary
The access provided from Lyme Road South along the back of the centre is perfectly adequate, though not well designed.. There is a three-way Stop street at the junction of St Francis Drive & Lyme Road South. This allows for controlled traffic flow from St Francis Drive into the Village Square, which would not be the case with the ramp access. It is our view, therefore, that the ramp is completely unnecessary.

Conclusion
This is yet another example of the problems which arise when Municipalities employ unqualified personnel in Town Planning Departments; wilfully disregard legislation and due process; favour developers; and ignore motivated approaches by the community. We are now engaged in damage control, and seeking to find solutions to problems which should never have arisen in the first place.

In the view of the St Francis Bay Residents’ Association, the process of developing the Village Square has been characterised by a succession of irregularities/illegalities which set a very dangerous precedent. For the record, the history is listed here.

1. During mid 2005, a plan comprising 2400 square metres of lettable space (or “bulk”) on erven 4 – 7 was submitted by Halifax Properties to the Aesthetics Committee and to the Ward 1 Ward Committee. The plan conformed with the Spatial Development Plan and with the local building regulations, and was approved by both bodies.

2. In about October, 2005, a totally different plan, involving 3900 square metres of lettable space, was submitted to the Town Planning Department for approval. This represented an increase of lettable space (and hence profitability) of some 67%. This plan was only feasible if a portion of Public Open Space 554 could be used for an access road and parking. There was a great deal of concern about this increase in bulk, since it was out of line with the scale and context of the rest of the area, and represented a major change in Town Planning policy, with important implications, including traffic circulation. No public debate was held on this. The revised plan was not submitted to either the Aesthetics or the Ward Committees for approval. Despite this, the developer has consistently claimed that his plans were approved by the Aesthetics & Ward Committees. The only plan approved by either committee was the initial one for 2400 square metres.

3. In November, 2005, the St Francis Kromme Trust, having heard of the new plan, contacted Sunette Maree of the Town Planning Department, to point out that, in terms of the Land Use Planning ordinance, Public Open Space could not be used for roads or parking. It would be necessary to re-zone the land, following an EIA, as required for all listed activities under the Environment Conservation Act of 1989. They also pointed out that the Land Use Planning Ordinance spelt out specifically what compensation was required for the use of municipal land for additional parking, such as was required to support such a large development. These representations were submitted in writing in December, 2005. No written response has ever been received.

4. There was provision in the Spatial Development Plan for a Link Road between Lyme Road South and Assissi Drive, the purpose of which was to avoid further congestion on St Francis Drive, by creating a direct link between the two existing commercial nodes, allowing for access to erven 2 – 11, and making provision for additional public parking. The expectations of the SDP are illustrated in Fig 24, which clearly indicates that all access and egress should be from Erf 554, and not from or onto St Francis Drive. This SDP provision was used by the Municipality to justify exemption from an EIA prior to re-zoning of portion A of erf 554 (where the access road and parking now are).

The Link Road concept was soon abandoned in favour of a road which followed the current route, ending in St Francis Drive, along the boundary of erf 8. This meant that the new road was for the exclusive use of the development, and no longer conformed with the SDP. The only cost to the developer was to pay for construction of the access road and parking area. This was his responsibility in any case, since the road was for his exclusive use, not conforming with the SDP, and additional parking was crucial to compliance with minimum parking requirements in the Land Use Planning Ordinance. No other compensation was required for the use of the Public Open Space. In our view this was in direct contravention of Clause 3.8.3 a) ii) of LUPO Regulations, and to the financial detriment of the community. This was pointed out repeatedly to the Municipality, but ignored.

5. During 2006, at least three attempts were made to set up meetings between the Municipality, the developer and the Kromme Trust, to try to resolve the outstanding issues. In every case, the meeting was cancelled at the last minute by the Municipality.

6. The day following the third cancellation, on 8th November, 2006, the developer went on site and began to excavate both his own land and the portion of POS required for the road and parking, allegedly with the authority of the Acting Director of Town Planning, Mr Fred Dennis. At this stage there had been no EIA and no re-zoning process for Erf 554. Any excavation of POS there was therefore illegal. It was from this point that matters began to go seriously wrong. The St Francis Kromme Trust, now joined by the Residents’ Association, took legal advice and were briefed by Senior Counsel, with a view to obtaining an injunction in the High Court..Only when it was clear that the community bodies were absolutely serious did the Municiplaity step in and instruct the developer to stop his excavation. By this time the work was virtually complete.

8. On 15 December, 2006, an on-site meeting was held, attended by Sunette Maree of the Town Planning Dept, Leon Gouws, Director Technical Services, Andre Struwig of the then DEAET, William Brooks, the developer, Emlyn Horne on behalf of the Residents’ Association, and Hilton Thorpe, then Chairman of the St Francis Kromme Trust. It emerged at this meeting that the Town Planning Department had applied in late 2005 for exemption from the EIA prior to re-zoning of a portion of erf 554, but that no action had been taken by the DEAET. Struwig was clearly embarrassed, and indicated that he wished to find a way forward. He proposed that exemption be granted, based on conformity with the Spatial Development Plan vision of a Link Road and additional parking. A strict condition was imposed that no construction activities would take place until all legal and administrative processes had been completed. This included re-zoning of Portion A of Erf 554.

It was agreed that a further meeting would be held on 15th January, 2007, to discuss the way forward. This meeting never took place. Early in January, 2007, the legal adviser to the two community bodies wrote to the Municipality, pointing out that any approval of the building plans at this stage would be highly irregular, since the required legal and administrative processes had not been completed. The building plans were totally dependent on parking requirements for a development of this scale, and the parking requirements could only be met once the POS had been re-zoned. At this stage the re-zoning process had not even begun, and this was subject to a public participation process, whose outcome could not be pre-empted.

9. Despite the undertakings given at the site meeting, and the legal warning, Council approved the building plans on 22 January, 2007, before the re-zoning process had even begun. Approval of the building plans gave the developer the legal right to begin construction. Unfortunately, the community bodies only learnt about this considerably later, by which time it was too late to seek an injunction. Approval of the building plans under these circumstances was highly irregular, and gave rise to many of the problems which ensued. The developer has made full use of this approval, in claiming that everything he has done has been authorised, despite the fact that he must have realised that the authorisation was completely irregular. The obvious question arising is why the Municipality gave its approval under such irregular circumstances.

10. In about June, 2007, it became apparent that the developer was about to go on site and begin construction. Because the plans had been approved, the only way to prevent this would have been to have the approval overturned in court. What was at issue was not the building itself, but the lack of due process associated with it. Once again, the community bodies threatened legal action, and without prejudice discussions were held with the Municipal legal adviser. In the event no court action was taken, mainly because the community bodies did not have the resources to sustain it.

11. Construction began in July, 2007, and only in August, 2007 did the Municipality launch a formal re-zoning process for erf 554. The community bodies objected to the re- zoning, in terms of contravention with the Spatial Development Plan and Land Use Planning Ordinance, and also on the grounds of no confidence in the process followed to- date. Selected businesses in St Francis Bay were informed about the re-zoning application, but the community bodies were not. The information was received on the deadline date for objections! The re-zoning was approved towards the end of 2007, with no response from the Municipality to the objection, and the community bodies were not informed of the approval of re-zoning. An appeal was registered with Bisho, on the identical grounds to the original objection. No response was received from Bisho.

12. One of the problems experienced was the whereabouts of the Building Plans. The Building Control Officer in St Francis Bay maintained that they were in Jeffreys Bay, whilst enquiries there were met with the claim that they were in St Francis Bay! After some months they were located at St Francis Bay, and a comparison with what was actually being constructed indicated a number of deviations from the approved plan. Clearly there was no policing going on.

13. One of the major issues was the ramp onto St Francis Drive, which did appear on the approved plan as a vehicle access, but not as a ramp. The plan showed two two-way accesses onto St Francis Drive, as compared with none at all on the Spatial Development Plan. The concern here was the likely traffic congestion which would occur on St Francis Drive during peak seasons, as had been highlighted in the SDP, and the fact that no Traffic Impact Survery whatsoever had been required by the Municipality.

There is widespread opposition to the ramp from the local community, and not simply from the two organisations. Some changes were made, with the ramp being used for access only, and then only for traffic travelling north, with the exit along the boundary with Rambling Rose being a one-way exit only. This was a distinct improvement on the original, if properly controlled, but it still did not address the fact that the ramp, being constructed on road reserve, is illegal, in that it contravenes National Building Regulations; that it will still cause congestion when the north-moving lane on St Francis Drive is blocked by traffic waiting to access the ramp; that its position on the brow of a blind rise is a potential traffic hazard; and the fact that it is unnecessary, since an adequate ramp already exists at the back of the building, accessed from Lyme Road South. This is far preferable, since traffic on St Francis Drive will be controlled by the three-way stop at the bottom of Lyme Road South. The community organisations are committed to the removal of this ramp, and due process has already been instituted.

14. There remains the issue of the treatment of Public Open Space by the developer. All that can be said at this stage ( 15 July, 2008) is that major irregularities are alleged to have occurred regarding both erf 554 & Erf 52. The matter is being handled by the Department of the Environment, and is currently the subject of legal action.

Conclusion
The major concern over this whole development has been the manner in which it has been handled by the Municipality, its consistent neglect of due process, and the implications for future developments in the Kouga Municipal area. Apart from the on-site meeting held on 15th December, 2006, which was the direct consequence of threats of legal action, we cannot recall a single occasion on which the Municipality has responded to representations by the community bodies, either verbally or in writing. On the other hand, the developer has been given every encouragement, to the extent of disregarding legislation, the SDP, the Ward Committee and public participation.
The huge unanswered question is: why?