Erin Carelse|Published
Plans to build 29 homes on Capri Common have hit a setback after the City of Cape Town refused to accept an incomplete development application, leaving the privately owned land protected by zoning that does not permit development.
The proposed development has sparked concern among residents who fear losing the fynbos, wetlands and wildlife at the corner of Bermuda Drive and Capri Drive.
The City has confirmed that no land-use application is currently being processed, but the dispute over the future of the open space remains unresolved.
Alexandra Edwards, who has lived in Capri for 35 years, has called for the protection of the open space at the corner of Bermuda Drive and Capri Drive, which she says is home to a variety of indigenous plants, birds and other wildlife.
In a letter, Edwards described the fynbos, wetland habitat and birdlife she has encountered there over the years. She also highlighted a population of Wachendorfia brachyandra, a flowering plant she believes is of particular botanical interest.
Concerns over Capri Common’s conservation value
Edwards also said the Western Cape Spatial Biodiversity Plan classifies Capri Common as a Critical Biodiversity Area 1a (CBA 1a), a designation she believes highlights its conservation importance.
She said the land was sold to a developer within the past two years and that several hundred objections were submitted against development, amid concerns about the potential loss of indigenous plants, wildlife and habitat.
In response to questions, the City’s mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment, Eddie Andrews, confirmed that Erf 15300 in Fish Hoek is privately owned and zoned Limited Use.
“This zone does not permit any development,” Andrews said.
According to the City’s records, the current owner took transfer of the property on August 5, 2025.
Andrews confirmed that an application seeking a zoning map correction, rezoning, subdivision and departure to permit 29 dwellings was created on April 30, 2026.
However, the application was incomplete and refused acceptance, and no land-use application is currently being processed for the property.
What about the objections?
While Edwards said several hundred objections had been submitted against the development, Andrews clarified that the City had received no objections or representations relating to the land-use application.
He explained that the application had not been advertised because it was refused acceptance. Andrews said it was assumed that the objections mentioned by Edwards related instead to the separate environmental authorisation process under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
His response did not confirm how many objections had been submitted through that process.
Environmental impact
Edwards has also raised concerns about the potential impact of development on the site's indigenous vegetation, wildlife and habitat.
Asked what measures were in place or proposed to protect these if development proceeded, Andrews said the impact on the biophysical environment was one of the decision-making criteria under section 99 of the City’s Municipal Planning By-law of 2015.
“This aspect will be assessed in detail when a new land use application is submitted,” Andrews said.