City of Cape Town: A new approach to the City's MSDF Overview Prepared for - 27th June 2018
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
City of Cape Town:
A new approach to the City’s MSDF
Overview Prepared for
27th June 2018
Content • Context is Everything…Reality check • MSDF Approach and Growth Direction • Spatial Transformation: Designation of areas, investment rationale and land use guidelines • “The Blue Turtle” – the City’s Urban Inner Core and Spatial Priority • Comparing old with new – CTSDF 2012 vs MSDF 2018 • Way Forward
Setting the Context
Munic % Pop Growth p.a.
Contextual Challenges No. Municipality
Category (2001-2011)
1 Gamagara B3 5.84
2 Musina B3 5.53
National/Provincial: 3 Bitou B3 5.22
4 Steve Tshwete B1 4.76
• Fiscal constraints… 5 Swartland B3 4.56
6 Midvaal B2 3.94
• Credit Rating Downgrades… 7 Overstrand B2 3.8
8 Emalahleni B1 3.58
• Flat-lined economic trajectory… 9 Rustenburg B1 3.5
10 Saldanha Bay B2 3.45
• Complex regulatory and
16 City Johannesburg Metro 3.18
reporting environment…and 18 City of Tshwane Metro 3.1
22 Bergrivier B3 2.85
• Urbanisation and growth of 24 Knysna B2 2.77
metro / secondary towns 26 Stellenbosch B1 2.71
27 Witzenberg B3 2.64
30 George B3 2.59
32 City of Cape Town Metro 2.57
33 Drakenstein B1 2.56
37 Swellendam B3 2.39
City of Cape Town Neighbouring Munics
Other WC Munics
Annual Growth Rate (%) 2001 – 2011 (Source Census)
Top 10
Top 30
Top 40
Contextual Challenges
National/Provincial: City:
• Fiscal constraints…
• Water availability / drought
• Credit Rating Downgrades…
• Affordability and housing
• Flat-lined economic trajectory…
• Access to jobs and services
• Complex regulatory and reporting
environment • Failing rail and congestion
• Urbanisation and growth of metro / • Increasing informality
secondary towns
• Increasing dependencies on
state for services / support
• “Jobless” growth
• Spatial fragmentation and
inequality
Key Metro Scale Spatial Insights
Atlantis
Century City
CBD Belville
Athlone
Khayelitsha
Mitchells Plain
Strand
Key Metro Scale Insights – In Quantitative Terms
1. 2008 – 2017 unemployment rate
incr. from 19.2% - 22.7% (“Strict”)
2. Burgeoning costs for City – R1,4bn –
R1,9bn re: costs of free basic
service packages (2016/17 –
2019/20*)
3. Low-income group spends up to
43% of income on access (well in
excess of international norms) – est.
500,000 citizens unable to afford
any transport means
4. 1996 - 2016 households living in
informal settlements incr. by 39%; in
informal backyards 257%; informal
dwellings 76% (18% of all h’holds)
Legal Context and Alignment to Corporate Planning (Integrated Development Plan - IDP)
Legal Aspects: Municipal Spatial Development Framework (MSDF) MSDF: component of the City’s 5-yr IDP 2017-2022 MSDF: provides longer term view of City growth, development and investment (10-20 yr) MSDF legally required to … • guide overall spatial distribution of current and desirable land uses within a municipality; • give effect to the IDP vision, goals and objectives; • align City’s spatial development goals, strategies and policies with national and provincial spatial principles, strategies and policies; • Direct and support private and public investment by identifying priority investment areas; and • Provide policy guidance to direct decision-making and investment.
Legal Aspects:
Municipal Spatial Development Framework (MSDF)
Section 22 of SPLUMA:
“22. (1) A Municipal Planning Tribunal or any other authority
required or mandated to make a land development decision …
may not make a decision which is inconsistent with MSDF.
2) …may depart from the provisions of MSDF only if site-specific
circumstances justify a departure from the provisions of such
MSDF.”
S.9 of Municipal Planning By-Law:
“9. (1) … the City may deviate from provisions of MSDF only if site
specific circumstances justify the deviationChanging MSDF Narrative and “Use” of the Document From… a largely prescriptive tool • Used to argue merits / demerits of development outside urban edge or changes in Spatial Planning Categories - SPCs to allow development. • Mapping informed by SPCs (highly detailed and technical, resulting in duplicating land use processes). To… a facilitative tool • Used to promote development in priority spatial locations; supported and guided by legal framework and adaptable land use management system – speed and confidence for those proposals aligned to strategic intent.. Whilst…Flagging potential risks! MSDF does not exempt applicants from considering spatial aspects reflecting developmental risks, flagged biodiversity aspects in need of verification, areas of agricultural significance etc. which may be subject to OTHER legislative process
MSDF: Inward Growth and Investment Rationale
Spatial
Transformation
premise:
> ACCESS TO >
OPPORTUNITIES FOR >
# of PEOPLE.
To achieve this, City
focus is on inward 2012 - 2018
growth and
investment to
support infrastructure
in support dense,
diverse and transit
oriented land uses.
IDP commits City
to this ...Spatial Transformation and Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) – IDP
The City intent on building a more inclusive,
integrated and vibrant city that:
• addresses the legacies of apartheid
• rectifies existing imbalances
• avoids the creation of new imbalances
in the delivery of services.
Key to achieving spatial transformation is
transit-oriented development (TOD) and
associated intensification of land use
(diversification and densification).
Emphasises strategic location of new
development strategically around public
transport.
IDP 2017 -2022Spatial Vision and Investment Rationale
2018 CTMSDF Spatial Vision
“The City is intent on building – in
collective partnership with the private and
public sector - a more inclusive, integrated
and vibrant city that addresses the
legacies of apartheid, rectifies existing
imbalances in the distribution of different
types of residential development, and
avoids the creation of new structural
imbalances in the delivery of services.
Key to achieving this spatial transformation
is transit-oriented development (TOD) and
associated densification and
diversification of land uses.”Areas of Land Use Intensification (based on TOD principles) City’s spatial focus based on an Urban Inner Core comprising: • Majority of “Very Needy” communities as identified in Socio-Economic Index • Integration Zones (Metro- South East, Voortrekker Road, Blue Downs) – BEPP rationale • Majority of commercial and industrial nodes - ECAMP • Transit Accessible Precincts (TAPS)f • Full extent of Urban Development Zone (UDZ) • Inclusive of airport / ports & primary freight infrastructure • Public Transport: Phase 2a implementation of My Citi and Blue Downs passenger rail link extension
R13 R14
Billion Billion
Proposed approach will have impact on where
and what City prioritises re: capex & opex /
infrastructure investmentsR13 R14
Billion Billion
…and it should have fundamental
impact on decision-making re:
applications, budgets etc.Spatial Transformation Areas
(STAs): Rationale and Investment
Assessing proposals with differentiated
“rules of the game” re: investment and
land use guidelines for each STA
City Infrastructure and
STA City OpEx
Investment
Urban Inner
Core - UIC
Priority Priority
Priority when serving
existing development /
Incremental communities.
Growth and
Consolidation Subject to capacity / Priority
Master planning when
Areas – IGA serving proposed
development.
Discouraged
Growth Areas – Zero Zero
DGA*
Focused on
Critical Natural enhancement and To maintain
Areas – CNA* expansion of assets asset
and access to assets
Unique Areas May be
May be high
x 4 ** high
* NB: Change in naming convention
** NB: Atlantis, Paardevlei, PHA, Swartklip more
detailed policy / investment guidelinesSpatial Transformation Areas
(STAs): Extent and Determination
Spatial Extent in Hectares % extent
UIC 41,589 17
IGA 49,792 20
DGA 69,544 28
CNA 83,652 34
• UIC + IGA= “available” urban footprint
for intensification and direct
capex/opex funding +/-37% of City’s
geographical boundary
• Urban Edge removed in favour of
policy and investment rationale that
discourages growth in DGA
• Intensification proposals in DGA will not
ordinarily be supported
• NB: 4ha “grid-based” delineation – not
cadastral
• Determination of STAs concluded via
extensive discussion with District
Planning / EnvironmentPrinciple, Policy and Strategy
Risk…
Biodiversity…
Agriculture
/ Water…
From CTSDF 2012
– emphasis on
land use / urban
edge, cadastral
To MSDF 2018 –
nested maps
directing metro –
scale intent &
policy
Consolidated Spatial Plan ConceptMSDF approach seeks to:
• Provide Metro-scale
principle and strategic
direction to progressively
transform Cape Town’s
urban form and function
• Implies curbing urban sprawl
and peripheral, segregated
development in favour of
inclusive integrated
development.
• Clearly identify “no go”
areas and protect critical
natural areas
• Maximise intensity of
• latent land use rights;
• and vacant land within
existing urban footprintSpatial strategy 1: Building an
inclusive, integrated, vibrant city Applicability in STA
POLICY
UIC IGC DGA CNA
SUB-STRATEGY NO.
P1 ✅ ✅
Encourage integrated settlement patterns P2 ✅ ✅
P3 ✅ ✅
Transform the apartheid city P4 ✅ ✅
P5 ✅ ✅
P6 ✅ ✅
Support incremental development processes P7 ✅ ✅
P8 ✅ ✅
Address spatial economic imbalances. P9 ✅ ✅
Proactively support publicly-led land reform and new
P10 ✅ ✅
housing delivery
Enhance unique sense of place and quality of built form P11 ✅ ✅
P12 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
P13 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
P14 ✅ ✅
Enhance value of heritage resources and scenic routes P15 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
P16 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
P17 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
Promote accessible, citywide destination places P18 ✅ ✅Spatial Strategy 2: Manage urban
growth, and create a balance
Applicability
between urban development and in STA
environmental protection
POLICY
UIC IGC DGA CNA
SUB-STRATEGY NO.
Encourage a more compact form of development P19 ✅ ✅
Make efficient use of non-renewable resources P20 ✅ ✅
Appropriately protect the citizens of Cape Town from risk areas/ P21 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
activities/events P22 ✅ ✅
P23 ✅ ✅
P24 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
Appropriate management of development impacts on natural
P25 ✅ ✅
resources and critical biodiversity networks
P26 ✅ ✅ ✅
P27 ✅
P28 ✅
Protect and enhance the city’s rural environment
P29 ✅Spatial Strategy 3: Plan for
employment, and improve
Applicability in
access to economic
STA
opportunities
SUB-STRATEGY POLICY UIC IGC DGA CNA
P30 ✅
P31 ✅ ✅
Promote inclusive, shared economic growth and ✅ ✅
P32
development ✅
P33
P34 ✅ ✅
P35 ✅
P36 ✅ ✅
Integrate land use, economic and transport planning P37 ✅ ✅
and support the sustainable operation of the IPTN P38 ✅ ✅
P39 ✅
P40 ✅
P41 ✅
Support the development of economic gateways, and
✅ ✅
manage land uses around them appropriately. P42Land Use Guidelines and Approach (Old vs New)
CTSDF – Map 6.1 2018 MSDF –
Consolidated Spatial Concept
In terms of
mapping-
similarities
Broadly Broadly
aligns aligns
Urban and Industrial SPC Urban Inner Core and
inside urban edge Incremental Growth areas
Broad support for land use intensification – similar “structure”CTSDF – Map 6.1 2018 MSDF –
Consolidated Spatial Concept
In terms of
guidance-
different
concept and
scale
Spatial
Land Use
Structure
focus –
Concept
cadastral
and
Investment
“levels”
Land use SPCs + urban edge: Spatial Transformation Areas:
Activity, Development Routes: cadastral Reduced “urban” footprint, IPTN trunk
delineation structural emphasis and Investment Priority:
4ha grid delineation basisUrban Inner Core (Land Use Guidelines)
Desired Land Use Outcome: diverse and dense land uses in association with current and future public transport infrastructure
provision.
• Preferred zoning categories: GR2-6, GB1-7 and MU1-3 as per the City’s Development Management Scheme
(DMS) in corridors and nodes and SR2 (incremental upgrading of informal settlements) where applicable.
• Differentiated intensification guidelines outlined in Density Table (adapted from approved Density Policy)
• Refrain from the following land uses:
o single residential developments around main transport corridors and stations;
o low worker density around main transport corridors and stations (such as large warehousing);
o noxious land uses that limit the nature of development on adjacent land due to Environmental Health Regulations;
o any land use which is only viable subject to the provision of extensive ground level parking areas (i.e. where densities are too
low to make structured parking on site viable);
o mono-functional, single storey public sector buildings; and
o single storey schools and sports fields that are not shared.
• Spatial manifestation of the legislative requirements including areas where:
o inclusionary housing policy applicable;
o high priority be given to the capital infrastructure projects and programmes;
o the strategic assessments of environmental sensitivities have shown that on-site protection or mitigation is less practical than
off-site offsets;
o detailed local plans should be developed, shortened land use development procedures may be applicable,
o high priority is given to coordination, alignment and integration of sectoral policies;
o Etc…
Ensure that:
o All new public facilities make use of land in an optimal manner, are designed to cater for an augmented and intensified user
base (users living and working in Urban Inner Core), are multi-storey and are accessible via public transport.
o High rise buildings are designed to allow conversion of uses between residential and non-residential.
o All structured parking to have floor to ceiling heights allowing for conversion to non-parking land uses over time.Should the provisions of spatial plans of a lower order in the hierarchy (including district and local spatial development frameworks and other existing local-scale structure plans) be deemed to be inconsistent with the MSDF, the MSDF will take precedence. The City’s local scale plans are cadastrally defined, whereas the spatial planning categories in the MSDF are no longer cadastrally defined. District plans may be used to interpret the MSDF on a local, cadastral scale in cases where the spatial designations between both documents are aligned. District plans may not be used to interpret the MSDF on a local, cadastral scale in cases where the MSDF shows areas designed in Discouraged Growth Areas that are indicated for urban development in the district plans. Approved MSDF Extract: Page 173
NEW:
Spatial Transformation Areas (STAs)
Land Use Desired land use outcome: limit land use
Guidelines to agriculture and rural zone uses
Status quo with preferred zoning of
Agriculture, Rural or Open Space as per
the Development Management System
In event that City Tribunal approves contrary to
above guidelines following rules apply…
INVESTMENT CITY CITY GRANT
PRIVATE SECTOR
PARTNERSHIP CAPEX OPEX AVAILABILITY
Privately Zero Zero No grant Zero incentives
funded areas. utilisation for
permitted development.
City will not
co-finance Self-funded and
infrastructure subject to
and private extraordinary
sector conditions of
payments approval
would be
greater than
conventional
development
chargesExtraordinary Conditions of Approval
Discouraged Growth Areas – In event of approval by Tribunal
CONDITION OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLE HOW THIS IS ACHIEVED IN PRACTICE PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS
Determine costs and • The City has limited capacity
transfer cost back to City will not pay for any City requires the developer to pay: and has confirmed that it will
applicant capital costs related to not service this area.
required infrastructure • all capital costs of utilities and social
and will not pay for infrastructure. • Applicants cannot apply to
operating costs of use grant funding for the first
infrastructure until 20 • all operating costs for infrastructure for a 20 year 20-years of operation due to
years post occupancy. period post occupancy. speculative nature of
development.
Mitigate against risk in
The City will require:
the event that
• The City has an obligation to
applicant does not /
• a bank guarantee to cover the total operating protect residents, should the
can not honour
cost of infrastructure for the first 20 years of developer default on
commitments
operation. operating of services
City will not carry
obligation.
speculative risks.
• the developer to include a provision in title deed
re “premium rating area” concept and to • The City needs to ensure that
comply with Consumer Protection Act ito prospective buyers can
informing prospective buyers of risk and cost make informed decisions.
associated with servicing arrangements.
Protect public good
• The City’s commitment to
Despite this being a self- • Developer required to ensure that residents have spatial transformation applies
funded project, the City access to social infrastructure and employment to all areas.
will insist on the creation opportunities through conditions requiring the
of a liveable provision of privately-funded social facilities (such • Whilst grant funding cannot
environment conducive as schools) and transport to places of be used to fund affordable
to spatial transformation employment. component of housing,
indigent grants can apply.Approved MSDF Extract: Page 52
Anticipated Process Outcomes – post MSDF approval • Basis of contention shifts from the urban edge “line” / SPC category to principle and approach • Avoid routine “challenges” of SPC on “old” SDF Map “6.1” and process of SDF amendment – arguably an inappropriate at Metro scale • “Nested SDF maps” highlight risks / development inhibitors that may trigger other legislation requirements (e.g. NEMA, Act 70 of 1970 etc. ) - processes managed by national / provincial / local administrators • Reflects these aspects spatially (in detailed risk, agricultural environmental maps) but indicates that ground-truthing etc. would be required via the stipulated processes – not duplicating these or requiring amendment to plan(s) and MSDF • Will not deter developers / landowners to be “inside” UIC + IGA – will need to amend IDP / MSDF to do so (annual basis) • Infrastructure Investment Programme and review of District Plans critical implementation aspects
Determining Consistency with MSDF
NB: (SOP being prepared):
• Applicant needs to consider development directives / spatial informants
/ land use outcomes described in MSDF (at least maps 5a-d)
• Sectoral policies (Tech Supplement A) may also be applicable
• Are there “refrain from…” land uses (noted in UIC)*
• Land use intensification proposals in DGA / CNA would not ordinarily be
consistent with the MSDF*
If yes to * are there site specific circumstances or stated land use
exceptions applicable?
NB: Applicant’s responsibility to motivate these for consideration of MPTConsistency Outcome
Processes available:
MPB-L application
• Lobby via District Plan
procedure and
review process
associated other
process that may be • Advocate change of IDP
relevant via annual IDP review
processMSDF Implementation
Inner City Affordable Housing Initiatives Integrated Public Transport Network
SDF Implementation Plan
Priority TOD Precincts / ProjectsBuilt Environment Performance Plan /
Capital Expenditure Framework
DORA requirement: annual plan and integral part of
the municipal package of strategic plans.
Unlocks access to following grants:
Human Settlement Development Grant / Urban Settlements
DG (HSDG / USDG)
Integrated City Development Grant (ICDG)
Public Transport Network Grant (PTNG)
Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant (NDPG)
Integrated National Electrification Programme Grant (INEPG)
Required to articulate the City’s investment rationale
and institutional arrangements to address spatial and
sectoral integration reflecting:
• strategic principles and priorities established in IDP
and MSDF;
• intention and desired impact of 2018/19 R9.2 capital
budget and operating budget of R39,8bn (total
budget R49,1bn) and outer MTREF years;
• investment rationale of other state departments and
entities; and
• strategic themes emphasised in guidelines issued
annually by National Treasury.
• NB: First time BEPP being submitted as Capital
Expenditure framework (CEF) in support of MSDF
(S.21 SPLUMA)MTREF budget2018/19
2018/19 – 2020/21 (Spatial Transformation Areas Analysis)
2018/19 2020/21
20%
36%
27%
8%
9%
Urban Inner Core
Incremental Growth Areas
Critical Natural Assets
Source: City of Cape Town Built Environment Performance Plan 2018/19Capital Spatial
Time
Utility Infrastructure cost (R Transformation
interval
IMMEDIATE PRIORITY 1.0?
million) Area
Electrical Bellville South Substation 83.5 Backlog Urban Inner Core
Electrical Blackheath Substation (Blackheath) 239.9 Backlog Urban Inner Core
Sanitation Increase Zandvliet WWTW capacity 336.4 Backlog Urban Inner Core
Sanitation Upgrade outfall sewers in the Mitchells Plain drainage area 54.4 Backlog Urban Inner Core
Sanitation Upgrade PS, rising main and collector sewer for the Rietvlei PS drainage area 28.4 Backlog Urban Inner Core
Electrical Spine Road Substation 145.2 1 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Mitchells Plain 106.5 1 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Acacia MTS 154.9 1 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Erica MTS 1506 1 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Erica-Swartklip-Voorbrug 132 kV UG Cable 342 1 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Belhar Substation UG & OHL (Behar) 661 1 Urban Inner Core
PRIORITY 1.1?
Electrical Philippi Substation (Philippi) 386 1 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Metal Substation (Airport) 246.8 1 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Platinum Substation (Vlakte) 110 1 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Plattekloof-Muldersvlei Substation, 132 kV UG cable 133.9 1 Urban Inner Core
Water Pipeline reinforcement to Paarden Island booster pump station 106.6 1 Urban Inner Core
Water New bulk supply pipelines to Khayelitsha area 72.4 1 Urban Inner Core
Upgrade outfall & PS of the Bridgetown PS drainage area & construct a new
Sanitation 194.2 1 Urban Inner Core
rising main to connect to CF3 outfall sewer
Sanitation Increase Athlone WWTW capacity 620.6 1 Urban Inner Core
Sanitation Increase Mitchells Plain WWTW capacity 49.1 1 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Broad Road 42.2 2 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Koeberg 50 2 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Observatory 82.3 2 Urban Inner Core
PRIORITY 1.2?
Electrical Oakdale UG Cables 170.2 2 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Tamboerskloof 126.4 2 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Woodstock 77.3 2 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Killarney Substation (Ascot North) 87.4 2 Urban Inner Core
Electrical Acacia-Montague Gardens Substation, 132 kV UG cable 190 2 Urban Inner Core
New PS, rising main / outfall sewer to divert flow from Green Point Sea Outfall
Sanitation 87.9 2 Urban Inner Core
catchment to Athlone WWTW drainage area
Indicative Infrastructure Triggers in Support of MSDF – UIC
source CoCT BEPP 2018/19Capital Spatial
Time
Utility Infrastructure cost (R Transformation
IMMEDIATE PRIORITY 1.0?
interval
million) Area
Electrical Depot Substation 90.3 Backlog IGA
Electrical Pinotage MTS 555 Backlog IGA
Water 100 Ml Contermanskloof Reservoir and supply pipelines 156.5 Backlog IGA
Water 100 Ml Steenbras Reservoir and supply pipelines 286.7 Backlog IGA
Electrical Monte Vista Substation 154.9 1 IGA
Electrical Gordon’s Bay Substation 87.2 1 IGA
Water 300 Ml Muldersvlei Reservoir and linking supply pipelines* 413.4 1 IGA
SECONDARY PRIORITY –
Water Muldersvlei WTW and raw water supply pipelines* 3,081.80 1 IGA
Water Pipeline between Muldersvlei Reservoir and Transfer Reservoir* 21.1 1 IGA
Water 300 Ml Transfer Reservoir 262.5 1 IGA
Water 150 Ml Blackheath Upper Reservoir 179.7 1 IGA
ASSUME UIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Water New bulk supply pipelines to Deep South area 83.4 1 IGA
Water 40 Ml Blaauwberg 1 Reservoir, rising mains & pump station 45.2 1 IGA
Water Bulk supply pipeline from Faure WTW to Helderberg area 70.4 1 IGA
Sanitation Increase Potsdam WWTW capacity 575.4 1 IGA
NEEDS RESOLVED?
Sanitation Increase Macassar WWTW capacity 391.8 1 IGA
Sanitation Increase Wesfleur domestic / residential WWTW capacity 143.2 1 IGA
New PS and rising main for flow from Gordons Bay drainage area and IGA
Sanitation 92.8 1
completion of diversion outfall to alleviate pressure on Lourens River PS
Upgrade outfall, PS and rising main for Railway PS drainage area including IGA
Sanitation 13.6 1
downstream outfall upgrades
Electrical Muizenberg Substation UG cables 149.5 2 IGA
Water Pipeline between Transfer Reservoir and Glen Garry Reservoir 365 2 IGA
Electrical Kraaifontein Substation 0 N/A IGA
Electrical Pelican Park Substation 0 N/A IGA
Electrical Stellendale Substation 0 N/A IGA
Sanitation Increase Fisantekraal WWTW capacity 0 N/A IGA
Indicative Infrastructure Triggers in Support of MSDF – IGA
source CoCT BEPP 2018/19Financial Year
POLICY ELEMENTS FROM MSDF 2017/ 2018/ 2019/ 2020/ 2021/
18 19 20 21 22
New Term of office IDP Preparation / MSDF Draft complete ?
Revise and adapt master planning of utilities
Prioritise, plan and implement TOD precincts
Review district plans
Assumption: District Plans Complete
Promote intensification / management in
Annual IDP / MSDF Review +
Annual IDP / MSDF Review +
Integration Zones (local area planning, tools etc.)
District Plan Initiation
Social Facility Optimisation Plans per sub-
metropolitan area
Land acquisition strategy to include a
section for transit accessible/ well-located
ECAMP updates, high level assessments /
predictions re: industrial land demands
Maintain database of undeveloped and
partially developed land / state-owned land
Ensure Greater Cape Metro Regional
Strategic Investment Framework (2016)
institutional arrangements in place
Timelines and Processes in Support of MSDF ImplementationSDF Linkages to District Plan Review
MSDF provision that reviewed Timeline (subject to change):
District Plans to at least…
• September 2018: Draft Status
Quo Analysis Report
Interpret at district level, the
reviewed MSDF vision, spatial
• December 2018: Completed
transformation areas and
Issues workshops on Status
objectives;
Analysis;
Confirm cadastral extent and • March 2019: Finalised Status
delineation of Urban Inner Core Quo Analysis and Identification
and Incremental Growth and of Areas of Intervention; and
Consolidation Areas; and
• June 2019: Conceptual Spatial
Confirm designation and extent Development Framework
of district and local nodes.Find us at: tda.gov.za
***MSDF approved 25th April 2018: download it here***
***Download the key MSDF maps in high res .pdf format here***
Enkosi…
Dankie…
Thank you for your interest and attention.
peter.ahmad@capetown.gov.za 48You can also read
