ANNOUNCEMENTS

ACHIEVEMENTS what CBCRA do in the community
BECOME A MEMBER and raise the level of community spirit
SEND US your suggestions and comments
READ MORE about City of Cape Town’s activities & policies
FAULT REPORT system introduced by the City Council
VISIT Property Valuations for more details about your CV22

Thursday 26 November 2009

The Crystal

THE CRYSTAL” - ANOTHER TOWNPLANNING CHALLENGE FOR THE CAMPS BAY RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (CBRRA)CBRRA ?

In recent years, CBRRA has been singularly successful in fighting excessive and unsympathetic developments in Camps Bay and environs.

To date, CBRRA has won five High Court cases against the Cape Town City Council in which it has applied for an urgent interdict for work on a project to be stopped until the High Court could review what it considered to be illegally passed plans on various projects in the area. These projects were on First Crescent, Camps Bay Drive, Geneva Drive, Blinkwater Road and Woodhead Close.

The ultimate success in the various projects have been varied, largely as a result of the City Council’s perceived support for the Developers / Owners.

What generally happened was that, having been interdicted and forced to stop works, Developers submitted rider plans which purported to legalise the project. With two significant exceptions (see one below) the Council almost immediately passed the rider plans and CBRRA was faced with having to reapply for the revised plans to be reviewed – a very expensive exercise and not always successful. The Blinkwater Road case has reached the Appeal Court and the judgement is pending any day now.

As you drive down Camps Bay Drive, just before you get to Woodford Avenue, you will observe on the right hand side, what is arguably one of the biggest structures being erected for forty one flats on the old “Troben Heights” Flats site.

In this instance, the Developer had plans passed in the latter half of 2008 without, in the Council’s opinion, having to have any zoning scheme departures or title deed restrictions modified or removed.

It is CBRRA’s legal opinion that the project illegal in respect of a number of alleged transgressions, namely :

* The building has five in lieu of only the three “floor levels” permitted
in the title deed.

* Certain facades are higher than the zoning scheme permitted 10
metre height above existing natural ground levels at any one point.

* The basement area exceeds the permissible “built upon “ area.

* The project has derogated the value of surrounding affected
properties (an adjacent residence lost a sale as a result of the
erection of the new building and the Seller could only sell
subsequently for ± R400 000 less). This was pointed out in a
written report by Valuer John van der Spuy, as being a striking
transgression of Section 7 of the National Building Regulations.

* Certain isolated retaining walls, erected to legalise the so-called
“basement” by the introduction of earth fill between them and the
basement (contrary to the spirit of the zoning scheme regulations)
are over the permitted zoning scheme heights..

What has compounded the problem, however, is that the Developer submitted rider plans at the beginning of 2009 which altered the design drastically. In September, the Council rejected these rider plans as being illegal, but has permitted the Developer to continue constructing the building not in accordance with the (now incorrect) original passed plans.

Apart from contesting the above issues, CBRRA strongly objects to this situation and has had a crucial meeting to clarify the above matters with the Council and the Developer postponed / cancelled four times by the Council over a period of six weeks - on the pretext that the Council was awaiting legal opinions before responding. It took CBRRA four days to obtain its legal opinions.

Every attempt by CBRRA to convene this meeting with all the top Planning Officials / Politicians has proved absolutely fruitless. In the meantime, the Developer is proceeding apace with the construction and this is a situation where clearly the Council appears to be on the side of the Developer and not the hugely affected neighbours or the community at large.

This experience supports the Peoples’ Post’s recent article which highlighted the unacceptable manner in which the City Planning Department conducts its duties in respect of planning matters.

Trudi Groenewald
Chairperson
CBRRA

No comments:

Post a Comment