Opposition grows against CBD parking development
The proposal by the Stellenbosch Municipality to build a parking garage in the centre of town, behind the town hall, serves before council today, despite the fact that a traffic impact assessment has not been completed. A financial viability study has been done, but public participation is lacking as well as the all-important traffic assessment.
This is the umpteenth development suggested by council that meets with widespread opposition from ratepayers. The municipality proposed to convert the big parking area behind the town hall into a three-story parking facility.
The proposed parking facility is in direct conflict with the town’s accepted Spatial Development Framework, Integrated Development Plan and a comprehensive array of other policies and best practices aimed at “alleviating traffic.”
A coalition comprising the private sector, individuals, and civil society – including Young Urbanists, the Active Mobility Forum, and Stellenbosch Fietsry – have expressed their strong opposition to the proposed development of new parking spaces at Erven 1962-RE, 1969-1976, 1954, 6402, and 6636, located in the heart of the CBD. Instead, they advocate for allocating parking outside the CBD.
Despite these significant concerns, including the potential for this project to exacerbate congestion, degrade the walkability of Stellenbosch, and harm our historic environment, the Stellenbosch Municipality has taken a concerning step. A 727-page report recommending approval of the proposal was suddenly added to the Council agenda for the meeting today. This report dismisses the objections raised by the Stellenbosch Interest Group (SIG), Young Urbanists, Active Mobility Forum, Stellenbosch Fietsry, Stellenbosch Ratepayers Association and other Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs).
The introduction of a large parking lot would increase reliance on motorized transport, exacerbating challenges such as the dominance of infrastructure favouring motorized options, unsafe crossings that prioritize private vehicles, and the obstruction of sidewalks. This move would undermine efforts to reduce traffic congestion, improve public safety, and enhance the accessibility and dignity of all community members, particularly those from outlying and previously disadvantaged areas. It would also counteract the strategic goal of transforming the Stellenbosch CBD into a more liveable, sustainable, and inclusive urban environment, as envisioned in the master plan.
Given the feasibility study done for the Eikestad Parking Private Public Partnership and Stellenbosch approved municipality policies, namely Spatial Development Framework 2019, Comprehensive Integrated Development Transportation Plan 2022 – 2026, Non-Motorised Transportation Master Plan 2020 and best practices across the world when it comes to solving congestion and best urban governance practices, the coalition find the aims of “alleviating the major congestion” and “parking challenges” experienced in the Stellenbosch CBD” as contrary given the location and negative impact of this project.
According to the coalition, the proposed development of a large parking lot in Stellenbosch’s CBD stands in stark contrast to the town’s commendable efforts towards reducing car dependency, enhancing urban livability, and promoting environmental sustainability. It would not only exacerbate congestion and pollution but also signal a step backward in the town’s journey towards a more sustainable, inclusive, and vibrant urban future.
“We strongly urge the Stellenbosch Municipality to reconsider the proposed development of parking spaces at the specified erven within the CBD, in consideration of its significant negative implications for sustainable urban planning, active mobility, and the broader community’s well-being.
Such a development would not only compromise the intended mobility benefits and spatial development plans but also detract from the efforts to stimulate economic and service developments along vital corridors like the Adam Tas Corridor, envisioned as part of a holistic approach to urban growth and mobility.
Over 3,000 signatures and countless objections from individuals and organizations have been ignored. This lack of acknowledgment undermines our constitutional and democratic rights to voice concerns and participate in decisions that affect our community.