Camps Bay Ratepayers & Residents Association

Objection to permanent departure of scenic protection and sign/roof lights in Victoria Rd Clifton

2011-11-30T09:55:00.002+02:00

From: Helet and Chris Merkling [mailto:merk@mweb.co.za]

Sent: 29 November 2011 09:44 PM

To: 'Sandra Hustwick'; 'Megan Lukas'; 'Beverley Schafer'; 'Chris Willemse'; 'Taki Amira'; 'Ossie Gonsalves'; 'Graham Rose'; 'Jill. Fabing'; 'Anne Darne'; 'Axel Bruning'; 'Brian Schachat'; 'Elley Biggs'; 'Otto Stehlik'; 'Bungalow Owners Association'; 'Rob Louw'; 'Esme de Wet'; 'B Comley'; 'Tiffany Jones'; 'B Creighton'; 'Charl Coetzee'; 'Geoff Hirschmann'; 'Paul & Di Boynton'; 'Chris Merkling'

Subject: Objection to permanent departure of scenic protection and sign /roof lights in Victoria Rd., Clifton (application 209606)

Dear Sandra, Megan, Beverley, Ossie, Taki, Jill et al:

Today we obtained a letter addressed to us and dated 31 October, 2011 from the Director of Planning and Building Development Management, Mr. Friedrich Durow, only after we physically tracked the letter to the Camps Bay Post Office and after applying information in a late e-mail sent yesterday from Ossie Gonsalves regarding notification of this application # 209606 by Beaches Apts., 10 Victoria Rd., Clifton. This letter was also sent by registered mail to some rate payers in the immediate area, principally in Dunmore Apts. (judging be the erf no.).

In response to the deadline for objections looming, I today reviewed at Council’s Dept. for Planning and Building Development Management the application file No. 209606 submitted on 16 August, 2011 ex post facto for permanent departure from protective environmental and bylaw legislation to “legalize a renovated canopy and new sign” and to “obtain Council permission for illegal building” (carried out around May, 2011). I was not allowed to copy the plans or application and any other residents and rate payers wishing to obtain further information is required to personally, physically go to view the plans and application.

Council does not share e-copies or scan copies of such information, but I have requested a review of this outdated, time consuming practice to allow for e-sharing and effective communication with the public and am hopeful that future communication with our Clifton community, the CBRRA and CBO will be more effective.

The Beaches’ application fees were apparently paid on August 18, 2011 and advertising fees on 28 October, 2011. Essentially that Beaches Apts. want to legalize “a new canopy height of 10 mm above the existing canopy, departure of sec. 93(5)(a) to permit 1457 in lieu of 1.2 m; departure of sec. 93(5)(e)(ii) to permit 1457 in lieu of 1.3m” and a new sign of 1.9 m in height.” Plans for the current installation of a new canopy and roof/sign lights and a departure of protective bylaws were never approved by Council to date (except for building plans approved on 3 August, 1993).

There is extensive opposition amongst neighbors against this application being granted.

1. No roof lights are indicated on the applicant’s plans submitted on 29 July, 2010 by Architect Mike Shaw, as far as we could tell today while reviewing the plans with Council’s Mr. Christiaan Coetzee. These roof lights are invasive of our private property rights and prevent sleep at night. The design specifications for the new, illegal Beaches sign box are excessive and out of kilter with all other sign lights in Clifton along Victoria Rd. and in breach with protective bylaws. I will e-mail photos of the other sign lights in this area tomorrow for ease of reference, but those lights are far more reasonable and much smaller in size and environmental impact and the applicant should surely be held to equal regard for bylaw restrictions applicable to and adhered to by other property owners in the protected area.

2. The applicant refers to the new roof structures, roof lights and sign lights as “a redecoration.” This is not true and constitutes de facto breach of protective bylaws (as is also clear from the essence of their application submitted after illegal installation). Council did not approve the roof or sign lights or the new canopy. The new structure fails to comply with building and environmental laws protecting Clifton and Victoria Rd. and is a manifestation of narrow (building) interests in direct contrast to the interests of the public, the Clifton community and the scenic designation.

3. Efforts by neighbors since March 2011 to work towards an acceptable solution have been met with silence and a recent verbal insistence that Beaches Apts. will first “legalize” the illegal structures with Council before consulting with community groups, or neighbors. Should Council grant the departures sought and allow excessive roof structures and roof/sign lights, an irreversible precedent will be set along Victoria Rd. and breach the scenic protection, urban conservation and infringe upon public and private rights.

4. Weather protection to occasional visitors and residents constitutes insufficient reason to depart from scenic bylaw protection. Walking a few meters with an umbrella in largely wind-free Clifton cannot weigh more heavily than environmental rights protecting against invasive, unnecessary canopies and structures breaching scenic protection afforded to Victoria Rd. and adhered to by other property owners in this area.

5. We wish to record that the physical advertising process has failed us and several neighbors (who are out of town and the country), despite our e-communication requesting information and seeking transparency over several months. We learnt today that the deadline for objections is Friday, 2 December, 2011 contrary to Taki Amira’s recommendation on 23/11/2011 that a 2 week extension should be allowed.

6. Our ability to seek or submit an environmental impact assessment, or legal opinion to support protection of the scenic designation and limitation of invasive building and light structures is therefore limited and unfair.

7. The applicant seeks to legalize a ‘renovated canopy and new sign” ex post facto, was allowed to build without Council permission and now seeks planning permission and invasive departures from environmental and scenic protection. Factual errata exist in the application. The height departures will detract from the current view of residents in Dunmore Apts. and other properties in the area.

8. Insufficient information was shared by the applicant and Council and pertinent information remains out of bounds, thus limiting our ability to comment and participate in opposing this application.

9. The application affects property owners, rate payers, visitors (both local and international), shortly everyone who uses Victoria Rd., as permission to depart permanently from protective scenic laws will change the face of Clifton with its unique nature and location and prevent unhindered views of the scenic beauty of this protected area.

10. The roof and sign lights are excessive and a health hazard to neighbors residing in this area as light refraction is severe and invasive, preventing sleep and rest at night.

11. We were advised today that our objection is accepted (on the basis of invasive lighting), but we wish to record the following additional objections: In erecting illegal structures and roof/sign lights and seeking ex post facto legalization from Council, permanent departures of the Cape Town Zoning schemes (detailed below) and failing to comply with relevant laws protecting public and private rights, the applicant and relevant public administrative officials have infringed our legal rights as follows:

Breach of the National Building Act and various bylaws such as the Land Use Planning Ordinance, and National Building Regulations through failure to apply for legal building, lights and structures to be erected at Beaches Apts.;
Breach of the Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985;
Breach of the Cape Town Zoning Scheme section 93(2);
Breach of the Cape Town Zoning Scheme section 93(5)(e)(ii);
Breach of sec. 33 of the Constitution of South Africa (“The Constitution”) as the decision to allow insufficient time to assess and object in detail to the application is unlawful, unreasonable and procedurally unfair;
Breach of sec. 33 (2) of the Constitution as everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by this decision has not been given written reasons why the decision to set a December 2, 2011 for objections deadline should be upheld;
Breach of sec. 195 of the Constitution as transparency has not been fostered since timely, accessible and accurate information has not been supplied to everyone whose rights are affected by this application;
Public services have not been applied fairly and equitably to everyone whose rights are affected by this application;
Breach of the Administration of Justice Act 107 of 1988, Act 72 of 1989, Act 63 of 1977 and section 24 of the Bill of Rights recognizing our rights to environmental protection;
Breach of the Urban Conservation designation of Victoria Rd and sections 112(1) and (10) of the Cape Town Zoning Scheme Regulations 29/6//1990 (gazette # 4649);
The applicants have avoided sharing any relevant information with affected neighbors and failed to respond to several written requests for meetings and proposed practical solutions to the invasive and illegal roof and sign lights;
The applicants have not shared their motivation for this ex post facto application with affected neighbors and interested parties;
Council did not approve the illegal roof and sign lights and should not do so in direct opposition to protective environmental and Urban conservation laws, but rather act to protect building laws, regulations, public and environmental interests;
Reports and/or notices issued against the illegal actions of the applicant by the Environmental Monitoring and Control (District A) of the Environmental Resource Management unit have not been shared with affected neighbors and our needs have not been fully responded to (despite the constitutional protection afforded in this regard);
Public and private environmental organizations like the Table Mountain National Park and the South African National Parks have not been afforded an opportunity to comment on the application seeking a departure of scenic protection even though the application directly impacts protected areas;
No environmental impact assessment has been done or shared with affected parties;
The Planning and Building development Management Locality Map attached to the letter dated 31 October, 2011 does not provide adequate information regarding the impact on the area protected as scenic;
Information regarding objections and support received for this application has not been shared with all stakeholders;
“Alterations and/or redecoration” were not approved by Council;’
The applicant has breached The Land Use Planning Ordinance no. 15 of 1985 (“LUPO”);
Breach of Sec. 24 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of South Africa which protects an environment that is not harmful to public and individual health or well-being and promotes conservation;
Breach of the Occupational Health And Safety Act 85 of 1993 which protects the public against exposure to health hazards (such as refractive and invasive lights preventing quiet and reasonable enjoyment of private property rights);
Breach of the Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989 (“the ECA) as granting permanent departure from the protective scenic bylaw protection will fail to control activities which may have a detrimental effect on the environment (as in sec. 21);
Breach of sec. 22 of the ECA – no reports concerning the impact of the application on the environment and/or alternate proposals on the environment have been submitted or sought from affected parties;
Breach of sec. 26 of the ECA;
The applicant is in breach of sec. 28(d) of the ECA and has not ceased activities contravening protective bylaws;
We have suffered damages as a direct result of the illegal roof and sign lights and have been obliged to take steps to protect our health and quiet enjoyment of our private property rights as direct result of the unilateral and illegal action of the applicant;
Land reserved as a nature area and as a protected natural environment in proximity to the area affected by the application will be negatively affected by the departures being granted;
Persons or groups of persons or organizations interested in or affected by the environmental management framework for Clifton and Victoria Rd. have not been afforded fair or adequate opportunity to assess relevant information and oppose the application in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 as amended (“NEMA”);
Breach of the NEMA provisions securing environmental protection and promoting cooperative environmental governance in this specific geographical area;
A public participation process has been limited in this application process in contravention of sec. 3 of NEMA;
Failure to take appropriate steps ensuring reasonable public participation of persons desiring to participate but being unable to participate in the process of an Environmental Management Framework in this protected area due to “other disadvantages” in terms of sec. 3(2) and sec. 4 of the Environmental Management Framework Regulations (no. 33306 dated 18 June 2010) (“the EMF Regulations”);
Breach of sec. 4 of the EMF Regulations;
Breach of the National Environmental Management Act Protected Areas Act of 2003 (sec. 41);
Disregard of environmental conservation objectives for Victoria Rd. and Clifton;
Contravention of sec. 39 and sec. 40 of “LUPO”;
No contravention levy has been paid by the applicant in terms of sec.40(d) of LUPO;
No Environmental Officer or Control Officer has been appointed to assess this application and to seek public participation in collecting evidence in support of or against this application being granted (sec. 42 of LUPO);
No Construction phase EMP has been submitted by the applicant (as required by LUPO);
No Basic Assessment Report to the Dept. of Environmental Affairs & development Planning (DEA&AP) has been submitted by the applicant;
Sec. 28 of the NEMA requires that responsible and sufficient measures be implemented to prevent environmental pollution and degradation from occurring nor have environmental requirements been adhered to by the applicant.

12. We request the following relief from Council, please:

(1) The imposition of restrictive conditions to the application for building plans submitted by the applicant duly cognizant of the community needs and environmentally protective laws, incl. but not limited to the Zoning Scheme and Urban Conservation restraints.

(2) Should the applicant be in further and continued breach of restrictions imposed by Council, we seek the implementation of contravention levies and fines against the applicant of an appropriate monetary value.

(3) We request a meeting with Council and the applicant to work towards a practical solution of the roof and sign lights and canopy structure which the applicant seeks to legalize, duly cognizant of environmental, public and private property rights.

(4) We request Council to refuse this application and to instruct the applicant to remove the illegal roof and sign lights and to comply with protective bylaws.

(5) We request Council to advise us via email of all future applications for departure of the zoning scheme and bylaws to allow full and timeous public participation and comment.

(6) Should Council in future review any conditions imposed on the applicant, we ask that we be advised via email of such review details.

(7) We request a copy of the record of the decision by Council in this matter (in terms of sec. 9 and sec. 10 of Act 73 of 1989.

(8) We request Council to again advertise the application also via e-mail and via the rate payers’ database to all Clifton rate payers and affected community and environmental organizations, incl. the Sanparks and the CBRRA and CBO.

(9) We request Council to obtain an Environmental Impact Assessment for this application and future departure applications from the Scenic bylaw protection of Victoria Rd. and sharing that report with us and all interested parties.

(10) We request Council to obtain feasible alternatives to the application being granted and illegal roof/sign lights remaining in situ.

(11) We request a copy of Council’s decision about this application and that Council prevents unnecessary legal costs from being incurred in this matter by ensuring proper consultation and adherence to the audi alteram partem rule.

(12) Confirmation of what information the Environmental Control Unit of the Environmental Resource management Dept. has submitted to Messrs. Durow and September, incl. your instructions to them to switch off the illegal lights, regarding the breach of protective bylaws and any objections to this application being granted.

(13) Confirmation that the Ratepayer’s data base will be updated with e-dresses of each property owner to facilitate future, effective and fair communication (rather than problematic postal mail and registered letters which are left uncollected for various practical reasons, incl. that some ratepayers live abroad our outside Clifton).

We would appreciate you supporting our objections to this departure and hope to hear from you before Friday’s deadline.

Please let us know should you require any additional information?

Kind regards,

Helet Merkling

082 822 55 17

For ease of reference, encl.:

E-mail from Taki Amira dated 23/11/2011:

Good morning Ossie:

As you can see from the string of emails below a number of residents and representatives of the community in the Clifton (Victoria Road (area have not been advertised to in connection with this application. In view of an apparent lapse on the administration side for correct advertising can you consider a two week extension period to allow for proper public participation.

Can you please ask the planner responsible, to email me a copy of the distribution list that should be on file.

Is it possible that you can also arrange for copies to go to The Camps Bay RRA and the Clifton Bungalow’s Association. Also include Mrs Helet Merkling as she is the CBRRA rep for this area.

Helet & Emma

You should receive (when one is sent to you) in the pack an A4 size plan of what is intended. Should you or anyone wish to view the full plans you need to visit the front desk on the 2nd Floor of the Media Building in Cape Town. This is the building where the Mini car show room is on the ground floor.

If you have any problems give me a shout.

I believe that Ossie will arrange for the correct process to be followed

Best wishes

Taki Amira

Councillor - City of Cape Town

Chairperson Good Hope Sub Council (No.16)

Wards 54,74 and 77

Tel: 021 4872001

Fax: 021 487 2208

Cell :082 440 1928

"If you don`t like something, change it. If you can`t change it, change your attitude. Don`t complain. "

Maya Angelou

Public Meeting: MyCiti Bus Route through Camps Bay

2011-11-17T09:07:00.002+02:00

Erf 275 Clifton (Kloof Rd), House Bailes

2011-10-18T18:44:00.000+02:00

SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN’S LAND USE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT’S REPORT DATED 19 SEPTEMBER 2011 TO THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN’S GOOD HOPE SUBCOUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON 17 OCTOBER 2011 AT 2-00 PM BY THE CAMPS BAY RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (CBRRA)

_________________________________________________________________________

PROPERTY : REMAINDER ERF 275 CLIFTON, 157 KLOOF ROAD, CLIFTON, CAPE.

APPLICATION NO. : 161811

FILE REFERENCE LM 4555

DISTRICT : TABLE BAY

SUBCOUNCIL : GOOD HOPE NO. 16

WARD : 54

WARD COUNCILLOR : B. SCHAFER

ATTENTION : CLLR. TAKI AMIRA, MARIUS COETZEE, BEN SCHOEMANN AND GREG SEPTEMBER

17 OCTOBER 2011

Dear Sirs,

THE ABOVE APPLICATION FOR DEPARTURES IN TERMS OF THE LAND USE PLANNING ORDINANCE 15/1985 AND COUNCIL’S CONSENT IN TERMS OF THE CAPE TOWN ZONING SCHEME REGULATIONS :

1. In terms of a letter dated 7 October, 2011 from The Good Hope Sub Council, the Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA) has been granted permission for an interview and accordingly comments on the Planner’s Report dated 19 September2011 as follows :

1.1 Background

This matter is of extreme importance as it embraces many key issues in respect of Council planning procedures and specifically addresses the attempts by the Applicant to retroactively legally rectify previously illegally constructed works – something to which the Good Hope Sub-Council has been strongly opposed in the past and at present.

The Applicant persistently attempts to contend in his documents that this is perfectly permissable practice, but your Sub-Council is well aware that this is a regrettably deceptive practice by Applicants to steamroller contentious and illegal designs through because , once built, it is exceedingly difficult to get the illegal works demolished.

CBRRA sincerely hopes that this will become a watershed case which will send out a clear message that the above back door type of plan passing by the submission and acceptance of subsequent rider plans is simply not acceptable.

1.2 CBBRA”S responses to the City’s LUM Department’s above report (referred to by paragraph numbers) are as follows :

1.2.1 Para 3.1

The report notes “that the structures mentioned have already been built.”.

This fact is completely ignored in the Applicant’s response.

Paras. 3.2 and 3.3

This application has already been rejected in principle by the City and the relevant Provincial Government Minister, who is now “functus officio” in this regard and has ruled that he cannot legally reverse his decision.

The Applicant has recently forcefully attempted to persuade CBBRA to withdraw its letter of objection, which CBBRA adamantly refuses to do.

This is because the whole principle of the title deed prevention of the construction of structures of any sort within the building setback line was re-established as law in the eyes of the authorities as a direct result of the recent Harrison Judgement in the case of CBRRA vs the City of Cape Town and others, and, having won that case, CBRRA is not going to reverse its hard – won contention, which this application so drastically wishes to change.

The City has requested the Applicant to secure the steep loose earth covered banks between the illegal stuctures on the western boundary and the street below as it contended that the construction of the foundations to the illegal structures loosened the bank’s earth. There has therefore been an ongoing danger of an earth collapse onto Kloof Road resulting in possible harm to passers – by and traffic. A collapse of this nature has already happened on the adjacent site, resulting in the extensive need for Gabion retaining walls.

The Applicant’s response , according to the City, was that he would execute such consolidation / support if the City passed this application – which the City is not prepared to do.

Whereas this side-issue is not the concern of CBRRA, it hereby gives notice to the City that this specific matter has been known and unsolved for over a year now and it calls upon the City to rectify the possible ongoing danger o the public.

Para. 3.4

Is important to note here that the Applicant has omitted in his response to inform Sub-Council that, when the original plans for this project were passed by the City, the pool was designed to be situated along the south boundary of the property, at right angles to the western street boundary, with only about a metre or so of one end of the narrow pool

projecting into the building setback area. (The City should not have passed this).

During the construction period, the Applicant took it upon himself to accept his Architects’ suggestion to relocate the pool into the illegal building setback area and he built the new pool design and its massive structural support system illegally in the building setback area over a period of six months until he was stopped by the City – without having submitted any rider plans beforehand.

The Applicant has continually pleadsed that he is not guilty of a transgression because nobody told him that what he was doing was illegal. He most certain;y would have found out if he had submitted his rider plans before commencement of the construction of the pool and its huge supports and not after completing same.

In any event, this is a naïve and legally unacceptable claim and the Applicant should be having recourse to his Design Consultants for any costs he may now be involved in if this was the case.

Of significance here is the statement in the report that :

“Notwithstanding the said notice and submission of a land use submission, building work on

the subject property continued unabated with the dwelling house ...... being completed”.

Also :

“Given the illegal building work and the substantial deviations from the approved plans, no occupancy certificate has been issued for the dwelling house”. It seems that the Council is still waiting for rider plans to accurately reflect what has been built.

Furthermore, CBRRA has learned that, notwithstanding this, the Applicant is currently

seemingly illegally occupying the completed premises.

All this is absolutely unacceptable to CBRRA and so it should be to the City.

CBBRA asks what the City intends doing about all the above as well as rejecting this application.

Para 4.

The “unique hanging gardens” only came into existence as a panic measure once the pool design was introduced and caused he huge sheer vertical face which now exists..

The removal of the obtrusive and overpowering illegal structures and the reversion of the design to the originally passed Architects’ plans will, in CBRRA’s opinion, immeasurably enhance the overall street façade.

CBRRA reminds the Sub-Council that , in is objection, it has also asked that proper landscaping to the value of at least R500 000 be executed in suitable positions to mask whatever is finally constructed along the west elevation of the building in whatever form it finally takes.

The Applicant has stated that “...... the dwelling house is not easily viewed”.

This is an incorrect statement. The further distance from which this complex is viewed, the more its unsympathetic and overpowering massing can be seen and, as agreed by the Council, it doe have an overall adverse effect on the surrounding environment (see also0 para 7.16).

The fact that the illegal structures do not support the dwelling is irrelevant, but will be an advantage when the illegal structures are demolished.

Para 5.2

The so-called “support” from adjacent land owners is a somewhat hollow claim seeing that many of their letters of no – objection were identically worded and the Applicant had obviously campaigned for their support.

CBRRA’s stance in matters like this must have the general public in mind and the Council’s and the Provincial Government’s support of its objection totally vindicates its objection.

Para 6.

The report’s response that the proposal does not involve any significant environmental implications seems to be completely contradicted by its paras. 5.3, 7, 8, and 9.

Paras. 7, 8,and 9

CBRRA is in full agreement with all the extremely negative statements made by the City Officials in their report in these paragraphs and hereby confirms it’s unqualified support for the City’s response which it sincerely hopes will be adopted by your Sub-Council.

Para 7.15

CBRRA views the content of this paragraph in respect of a portion of the dwelling house contravening the 5m Proclaimed Main Road Setback, with renewed and increased alarm . It is of the opinion that the statement herein typifies exactly everything that is wrong about this highly flawed design and application. It is yet another cogent reason why this application should be rejected by your Sub-Council. The response from the Provincial Department of Transport and Public Works speaks for itself and should be emulated by your Sub-Council in your adjudication of this application. .

2. Conclusion

For the above reasons, CBRRA hereby calls upon your Sub-Council and the City to completely reject all aspects of this application. In addition, CBRRA trusts that the City and the Provincial Government will oppose any legal challenges which may be made by the Applicant should your Sub-Council reject this flawed application as requested by CBRRA.

John Powell

Vice-Chairperson

For

CBRRA

MEC Anton Bredell

Provincial Government

Western Cape

what about the whales - letter

2011-10-18T08:41:00.000+02:00

Dear Mr Lazarus

Thank you for e-mail and the concern that you have expressed regarding the disturbance of whales. There are general Regulations that nobody may approach whales closer than 300 m except on the authority of a permit.

However, permits have been issued to a regulated number of boats to undertake whale watching and they have their own set of rules. They have to adhere to strict permit conditions that spelled out clearly how to approach whales and how to behave when they do. They are allowed to approach whales at a slow speed up to 50 m where they must stop. From that position it is up to the whale to control the interaction. In some cases the whales out of their own choice approach right up to the boat. This interaction is allowed but under strict rules.

The first question would be thus if Top Billing was making use of an authorised whale watching boat or not.

I hope this response addresses your concern.

Yours sincerely

Herman Oosthuizen

Science manager

Branch: Oceans and Coasts

Department Of Environmental Affairs

>>> "david/hazel lazarus" 26/10/2011 1:51 AM >>>

Dear Mr Oosthuizen,

after trying to track down the correct person and department, I was referred to you by Mogamat Junat, Head of the Coastal Management Unit at Province's Dept of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

Last night the TV programme Top Billing was broadcast. One of their clips featured their guests being taken on a whale-watching trip in Hermanus. It was clear to viewers that the boat came very close to the mating whales: notwithstanding the fact that the TV camera may have been shooting on close-up, the angle of one of the guest's own camera showed her aiming downwards towards the whales.

As a civic-minded citizen and environmentalist, I am concerned that the impression has been created that whale-watching boat trips prohibit watching whales at close range - and, as a Kapenaar, I'm sure that there is a law forbidding that.

Would you please provide me with the relevant regulation determining the distance from the whales beyond which no boat may encroach. I will then contact the owner/producer of the company that produces Top Billing (Michael Moll of Entemol), discuss this with him and request him to correct the false impression in next week's programme.

If the law prohibits such close whale-watching and their sponsoring whale-watching company broke that law (maybe there is provision for exemption and they were given special permission by the authorities to do so), they should be taken to task for being highly irresponsible.

Entemol would similarly be irresponsible for not having obtained the necessary facts before the trip and ensuring that their sponsor didn't break the law. They should also have added into the script the information alerting viewers to the distance restriction, irrespective of whether they abided by that law or broke it, as it is of environmental interest and shows that South Africa cares about its marine life and the conservation thereof.

I look forward to your early reply.

Sincerely

David Lazarus

Vice-Chairperson

SFBRRA (Sea Point Fresnaye Bantry Bay Ratepayers & Residents Association)

Do you remember when...??

2011-10-16T22:50:00.000+02:00

YOU REMEMBER WHEN...?

It took five minutes for the TV warm up?

Nearly everyone's Mum was at home when the kids got home from school?

Nobody owned a purebred dog?

When a shilling was a decent allowance?

You'd reach into a muddy gutter for a penny?

Your Mom wore stockings that came in two pieces?

All your male teachers wore ties and female teachers had their hair done every day and wore high heels?

You got your windshield cleaned, oil checked, and petrol pumped, without asking, all for free, every time? And you didn't pay for air?

Cereals had free toys hidden inside the box?

It was considered a great privilege to be taken out to dinner at a real restaurant with your parents? (Never happened to me !)

They threatened to keep kids back a year if they failed. . .and they did?

When a 57 Holden was everyone's dream car? No one ever asked where the car keys were because they were always in the car, in the ignition, and the doors were never locked?

Lying on your back in the grass with your friends and saying things like, "That cloud looks like a .... "

and playing footy with no adults to help kids with the rules of the game?

Stuff from the shop came without safety caps and hermetic seals because no one had yet tried to poison a perfect stranger?

And with all our progress, don't you just wish, just once, you could slip back in time and savour the slower pace, and share it with the children

of today?

When being sent to the principal's office was nothing compared to the fate that awaited the student at home? (Not so – a Principal once nearly cut me in half !)

Basically we were in fear for our lives, but it wasn't because of drive-by shootings, drugs, gangs, etc.

Our parents and grandparents were a much bigger threat! But we survived because their love was greater than the threat.

Send this on to someone who can still remember Enid Blyton, Just William,

Secret Seven, Biggles, the Lone Ranger, Phantom, Superman,

Roy and Dale and Trigger, Gene Autry, ITMA, Take it from here, Much Binding in the Marsh, The Goon Show, Deanna Durban, Shirley Temple..

As well as summers filled with bike rides, cricket games, Hula Hoops, monkey bars, foefie slides, visits to the beach and "conversation" lollies.

Didn't that feel good, just to go back and say, "Yeah, I remember that"?

I am sharing this with you today because it ended with a double dare to pass it on. To remember what a double dare is, read on.

And remember that the perfect age is somewhere between old enough to know better and too young to care. After all, it is never too late to have a second childhood !

How many of these do you remember?

Lolly cigarettes

Pogo sticks, marbles,

Home milk delivery in glass bottles with aluminium tops

Newsreels and singing God Save the King before movies

Sandshoes

Buying vegetables from the Sammy cart

Telephone numbers with letter prefixes....(ABD 601).

33, 45 and 78 RPM records for gramaphones

Hi-Fi's

Metal ice cubes trays with levers

Mimeograph paper

Cork pop guns

Drive ins

Valiants and the ‘48 Chevy

Washtub wringers

Reel-To-Reel wire and tape recorders

Houses made of cards

Meccano Sets and Lionel and Hornby Trains

Raleigh bicycles

That awful pink slab of bubble gum

Penny lollies

3s&6pence a gallon petrol

Lead toy soldiers

Silkworms

Kites

Ching – Chang - Cha

Do you remember a time when...

Decisions were made by going "eeny-meeny-miney-moe"?

"Race issue" meant arguing about who ran the fastest?

It wasn't odd to have two or three "Best Friends"?

Saturday morning cartoons weren't 30-minute commercials for action figures?

Swopping comics at the Saturday morning bioscopes.

Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet

Spinning around, getting dizzy, and falling down was a cause for giggles?

The worst embarrassment was being picked last for a team?

Playing cards in the spokes transformed any bike into a motorcycle?

Taking drugs meant orange-flavored chewable aspirin?

Water balloons were the ultimate weapon?

If you can remember most or all of these, then you have lived!

Bus stop shelters in Camps Bay

2011-10-15T22:31:00.002+02:00

Below follows some communication about concerned residents and CBRRA Manco communication with Council regarding the MyCiti Bus route that is proposed for Camps Bay:

Hi Marius

Thank you for managing this process.

CBRRA appreciates the efforts made by the IRT personnel in addressing Gary Leih's concerns and we can report that he is satisfied with the outcome thus far.

Of course, this process has now generated considerable general public concern and Cllr Amira's comments wrt the public participation process are endorsed by this Association.

However, Cllr Schafer is currently engaging with the relevant officials on certain specific issues and we await her feedback on this matter.

Cheers

Chris

Friday, October 07, 2011 10:58 AM

Many thanks for addressing this matter, Tom.

Kind regards / Vriendelike groete/ Ngombulelo omkhulu

Marius Coetsee

Manager: Good Hope Sub-council (16)

From: Tom Pressinger

Sent: 07 October 2011 10:32 AM

Dear Marius

I have responded to Mr Gary Leih personally and we will be modifying the bus stop plans to ensure that the impact on the landscaped area is minimised. We will no longer be erecting a full shelter and this will be replaced by a platform and pole arrangement. The revised plans will be shown to Mr Leih before any further work commences.

There was public communication about the construction programme for the feeder stops in the news media roughly eight weeks ago and the plans for individual stops have been available for public scrutiny on the MyCiTi website ( i.e. at http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/MyCiti/Pages/Routes.aspx ) and in public libraries. A notice of intent to commence construction work was posted in the letter boxes of nearby residences by the contractor. In future, we will ensure that a notice is distributed to all property owners and residents in the immediate surrounding area at least one month prior to the commencement of construction.

Kind regards

Tom Pressinger

IRT Infrastructure and Development

021 4009141

From: Marius Coetsee

Sent: 30 September 2011 03:46 PM

Hi Tom

The emails below refer.

Your urgent comments on the enquiry from Mr Chris Willemse will be appreciated.

Kind regards / Vriendelike groete/ Ngombulelo omkhulu

Marius Coetsee

Manager: Good Hope Sub-council (16)

From: Gershwin Fortune

Sent: 30 September 2011 03:40 PM

Hi Tom

Pls advise

Gershwin Fortune

Manager: IRT System Planning & Modelling

From: Vivienne Sasman

Sent: 30 September 2011 03:04 PM

To: Gershwin Fortune

Cc: Marius Coetsee; Lucille Muller

Subject: FW: CBRRA Bus stop shelter 1 Atholl Rd

Good day Gershwin, please see correspondence from Mr Willemse and inform us who is the official responsible for the construction of the MyCiTi bus shelter.

Kind regards / Vriendelike groete/ Ngombulelo omkhulu

Vivienne Sasman

Admin Assistant

Good Hope Subcouncil 16

From: Chris Willemse [mailto:cnwillemse@gmail.com]

Sent: 30 September 2011 01:22 PM

To: Marius Coetsee

Cc: Vivienne Sasman; leihsathome@googlemail.com

Subject: CBRRA Bus stop shelter 1 Atholl Rd

Hi Marius

CBRRA has received a complaint from the owner at 1 Atholl Rd (cnr Geneva Drive), Mr Gary Leih, regarding the construction of a MyCiTi bus stop shelter on the verge at the above address.

It appears as if there was no consultation with the residents nor any prior notice given by the Authorities. Further, expensive landscaping paid for by Mr Leih, and agreed to by the City, has been destroyed. Please could you advise both Mr Leih and CBRRA as to how to properly address this matter.

Cheers

Chris

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

11 October 2011

Thanks John,

Could I please ask that whilst this matter is being further debated, that the powers-that- be instruct the workers to cease the trench digging outside my property, pending further evaluation?

many thanks,

Paul

Paul is absolutely correct.

The IRT must be asked to relocate the bus stop further down Camps Bay Drive to free up the stop street which handles the huge daily flow of traffic from Cape Town to Hout Bay.

I also agree that Argyle Road is physically not able to handle the large busses and two traffic lanes - one parked even if on one side only).

Can Chris, Beverley and Marga (the route is also in her constituency) pursue these matters please? I would suggest that Beverley and Marga wait until after our CBRRA Manco meeting before attempting to resolve the route, because, what happens if people do not agree which what they think and agree is a solution ?! Here must be a massive public participation process here. I suggest that after our meeting, Manco and our two Councillors request an interview with the Director of the IRT whoever he may be.

Cheers,

John

Dear John and Beverley,

Thanks for the email replies. My thoughts are as follows:

1. Camps Bay Drive is a busy road - used by those returning from town to both Camps Bay, Llundudno / Hout Bay and beyond. It is no wider than most "internal roads" within Camps Bay.

2. In summer, the road is largely gridlocked in the direction towards thew beach front.

3. We already have countless "City sightseeing buses" that contribute to further congestion along the route. Fortunately, they do not stop on CBD.

4. Placing a bus stop before Houghton Road (as is being processed currently) will only aggravate the traffic situation, not improve it, since many cars coming down Camps Bay Drive actually turn down Houghton to go on to Llundudno and Hout Bay / beyond. Taxis, with all their faults, are not reasonably compared to a large bus as regards traffic congestion.

5. If the route is to be used, the bus stop would be more efficiently placed beyond Houghton Road, perhaps opposite Houghton Steps, so as not to choke off the free flow of traffic wishing to turn left at Houghton from CBD. Common sense, in my opinion....Anyone who appreciates normal traffic flow surely would agree.

6. Furthermore, whilst I respect that you were kind enough to reply to my email and "don't make the rules", I fail to see how adverts in a community newspaper (which I may or may not read) constitute adequate notification of anything. When an individual wishes to apply for a building departure several hundred metres from my house, and often not in my line of sight, I get a registered letter mailed to me for potential objection, not an ad in a community newspaper. Obviously, the residents of Argyle and Tree roads are more avid readers of the Atlantic Sun, than am I.

7. I find it somewhat amusing that trenches are being dug right up to my (newly painted) boundary wall, even before the final routing is established, given the objections raised by residents of Argyle and Tree Roads. I don't have the time to canvas opinion from my neighbours, but would be very surprised if they were delighted by the prospect, if indeed they are even aware of the proposed bus route.

I realise my email is probably futile, but I may well seek legal opinion regarding the process

Dr Paul J Skoll, FRCS, FCS(SA)Plast

Hi Everyone

I am meeting with the Director of the IRT and concur with Argyle Residents that Argyle and Tree Rd are not the most appropriate options for the IRT route. Please wait for feedback from my meeting before any action or email flurry takes place. I would like to attempt to resolve this first with city officials before residents take any further action.

Regards,

Cllr. Beverley Schafer

Ward 54 ( Atlantic Seaboard)

Thanks Chris.

The road is now being carved up as I write this.

It would seem to be somewhat counter productive to proceed before the route has been finalised - twice the work and cost if this needs to be "undone", should the penny finally drop that the siting outside my house, only metres from the Houghton Road turn-off, will choke off the free flow of traffic heading towards Hout Bay, where-as there is a perfectly appropriate potential site for a bus stop opposite the Houghton Steps green belt, beyond the turn-off. Anyone with even the vaguest idea of traffic flow in the area could not argue this fact. Perhaps Ms Schafer or other decision makers could do a site inspection as a matter of urgency, to limit the need for a further waste of money.

Kind regards

Dr Paul J Skoll, FRCS, FCS(SA)Plast

Hi Paul

Cllr Beverley Schafer is currently in talks with the IRT officials.

I'm sure she will respond to your request soonest.

Cheers

Chris Willemse

Dear Paul,

Yes indeed this is a new bus stop on the new rapid transport network which is being opened between town and Camps Bay as well as via Sea Point to Hout Bay..

This is one of the very many new routes which, in the next year or two will transform Cape Town’s public transport system into a first world facility. When this particular route opens, you will be able to take a bus from your doorstep to the airport and back, amongst many other extended destinations and it will greatly relieve traffic congestion on our roads and fuel, carbon emissions etc. with most cars currently only having one person in them.

You would have seen full details of this route as an attachment to the 23 June 2011 Atlantic Sun (I have a copy) and that would have been the time to comment / object as all this was much advertised in all the newspapers. .

At No 92 Camps Bay Drive, I am almost as affected as you are, but I understand the need and will not object to this initiative. We simply cannot have the amount of underutilised cars on our roads as we do at present and, unless an initiative such as this is implemented now, Cape Town will be in traffic gridlock within the decade. The Council is to be congratulated for this and the sooner Capetonians start using it the better.

The Camps Bay loop will start at the Civic Centre as do most routes, comes over Kloof Nek, down Camps Bay Drive, past your and my houses and down to Victoria Road, It then turns up Argyle Road, Lower Tree Road, left up Geneva Drive and back over the Nek via the upper part of Camps Bay Drive again.

This route was obviously chosen to be as central and within walking distance from both sides of all those in Camps Bay who wish to catch it and there will be 20 bus stops such as this going up near you below Kloof Nek along the above route.

As there will be no lay-bye where the bus stop near you next to Houghton Road will be, the bus will simply stop in Camps Bay Drive, as do all taxis and people will have to wait as they do for taxis as the bus is too big to pass, the road is too narrow (6m for two lanes) for passing and there is a blind corner right there. Lower down in Camps Bay Drive may be too close to the next stop.

I have had an equally negative comment from people in Argyle Road who have asked why the route cannot go up Strathmore Road - the answer here being that the other roads in the area are too steep and too sharply curved for the big busses to get there and in any event that road is a dead end !

Should you wish to contact the Council about this matter, please email and copy to CBRRA.

Kind regards,

John Powell

Vice Chairperson

CBRRA

Hi,

Building continues. No response from anyone thus far.

Kind regards

Dr Paul J Skoll, FRCS, FCS(SA)Plast

Hi,

I wonder if I might ask a question:

I live at 80 Camps Bay Drive, and have done so since 2004. I arrived home today, to see some council type work (digging trenches) in front of my house adjacent to my boundary wall (on the pavement).

I enquired as to what this was about, and was told that a bus stop is being "built" in this location. No prior advice or word from council on the matter. In additiom, it seems a stange place to site a bus stop, since it is only a few metres from the Houghton road intersection

My questions:

1. Is this legal?

2. Do I have any means of objecting?

Please advise....

Thanks very much,

Kind regards

Dr Paul J Skoll, FRCS, FCS(SA)Plast

Plastic Surgeon

City’s New Cell Mast Draft Policy

2011-10-13T22:28:00.000+02:00

City’s New Cell Mast Draft Policy

Thanks to all who sent in their comments on the 'Draft Telecommunication Infrastructure Policy'. By all accounts, the responses were so numerous that the City has requested that the public stop sending them in. Due to the fact that applications for Cellular Infrastructure are still presently being lodged with the City, we have received the following suggestion from EMRSA (the group that was mandated by a number of associations to represent their interests on this issue).

Dear Cell Mast Objectors,

Thank you for sending in your comments/objections on our City’s New Cell Mast Draft Policy.

Apparently they have received an overwhelming amount in.

In the light of this we are now appealing to our Councillors to put a suspension on the placement of all Cell Masts in our City until this policy is finalized and implemented.

Please help us in this regard by writing to your Councillors about this.

Ward Councillor details can be found here: www.capetown.gov.za/en/CouncilOnline/Pages/ViewCouncillors.aspx

Thanking you!

Best regards

Miriam Agnew

www.emrsa.co.za

A copy of our letter:

Call To Suspend Cell Mast Applications Until Telecommunication Policy Is Finalized and Implemented

Our city recently had the Draft Telecommunication Infrastructure Policy out for comment and received an overwhelming number of objections and comments from the public. In the light of this I am appealing to you our Councilor to assist us in calling for a suspension to be put on all Cell Mast Applications until this policy is finalized and implemented. Communities are now strongly opposing Cell Masts throughout Cape Town - in Durbanville, Constantia, Bishopscourt, Hout Bay, Simonstown, Milnerton, Fish Hoek, Somerset West, Plumstead, Rondebosch East, Khayelitsha, Helderberg and Camps Bay. Connecting, sharing resources and information as people are doing nationally and internationally. The voice of the people of Cape Town must not be ignored when new policy is considered. Please hear our concern and support us.

Princess Vlei Good News

2011-10-13T22:26:00.000+02:00

Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance

Princess Vlei - GOOD NEWS!

Philip Bam, Graham Noble, Kelvin Cochrane & myself were present at the Spatial Planning, Environment and Land Use Management Committee meeting yesterday to hear SPELUM unanimously refuse the Developer’s application to develop a shopping centre on Princess Vlei. The matter will now go to Province for the final word. A big thanks to Graham, Philip and Kelvin who all have worked long and hard to get this victory today. We shall therefore now provide the City with our development proposals for Princess Vlei, which includes a Commemoration hall to the Khoisan people and an auditorium – something along the lines of Rondevlei. With the above in mind, we’ll be inviting Mayor Patricia de Lille to No.10, Bottom Road, Grassy Park on the 12th November 13:00 to keep her in the loop and get her support for our development ideas. In addition, we intend to organize a Memorial/Celebration Service on Princess Vlei the following Saturday 19th November 10:00, when the Khoisan in full regalia will rededicate the land of their ancestors and give thanks.

Regards

Len

Have your say in determining the City's priorities

2011-09-26T22:13:00.000+02:00

Click on the images to enlarge:

Good day

The City of Cape Town is developing its new five-year plan, also known as the Integrated Development Plan(IDP). The IDP sets out the City's strategic and budget priorities for the next five years. It specifies how the municipality will allocate resources and spend money.

The attached edition of City News explains this process and affords you the opportunity to have your say in determining the City's priorities.

Kind regards / Vriendelike groete/ Ngombulelo omkhulu

Marius Coetsee

Manager: Good Hope Sub-council (16)

11th floor, 44 Wale Street

CITY OF CAPE TOWN

Tel 021 487-2055

Fax 021 487-2208

e-mail: marius.coetsee@capetown.gov.za

"Sub-councils: Here to serve you well"

City solved water drainage problem in Geneva Drive

2011-09-18T22:03:00.000+02:00

The problem with water drainage on Geneva Drive, close to the Sedgemoor link in Camps Bay, has existed for many years. The City has responded promptly to our request on behalf of Resident Angie Dionysopolous for resolution to the ongoing water drainage problem which worsens in winter making this corner very dangerous. Our thanks to the City and all involved. See photos of serious solution work in process here:

Concerns about 21 Fulham Road

2011-09-16T21:52:00.000+02:00

From: Chris Willemse

Date: 14 September 2011

Dear Arafat,

Thank you for your letter dated 13 September 2011 re filming “The Bachelor” at 21 Fulham Road, Camps Bay which has been passed onto me as Chairman of Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA).

Taking all the information available from the letter and from you via John Powell into account, CBBRA registers it strongest possible opposition to the proposed film shoot as described in the undated letter from Trisphere being executed at 21 Fulham Road fr the following reasons :

To begin with, CBRRA is unaware that 21 Fulham Road has a business licence to execute this proposed project and for this reason, it is not prepared to permit any business in a residentially zoned property.

Our other problems with this proposal are as follows :

Fulham Road is a very narrow, twisty cul-de –sac which is totally unsuitable for a lenghty and expansive project such as this. Too many residents will e incomvenienced over too long a period for this proposal to be viable and considerate to all.

Nine “big” nights with loud party noises and no doubt plenty of drinking and general neighbourhood disturbances, taking away the public’s general normal use of the road for seemingly 16 hours each time from 12 am to 4 am is totally unacceptable – especially with the requested intermittent lock-offs of Fulham Road which is the only access for the many residents into the cul-de-sac beyond. No “lock-offs” can be contemplated or allowed.

The requested trimming of trees in the road reserve opposite is refused - not negotiable.

Catering, wardrobe, make-up areas, while not in the vicinity are also extensive and will interfere with the normal running of the neighbourhood. While road reserves are unacceptable as they will cause loading and off-loading traffic congestion, the only suitable area seems to be the nearby Symmonds Primary School Field. But then again, the entrance thereto is on the apex of a very fast blind U – bend on Camps Bay Drive and, therefore, extremely hazardous and unsuitable.

You mention that the film operators will require about fifteen parking spaces or more, which is obviously impossible. A closer study of the requested area will reveal that all the roads in the vicinity are very narrow with many sharp curves, not really suitable for the massive vehicles which go hand in hand with a film shoot.

CBRRA does not consider that a meeting with adjacent neighbours wlll be productive other than to verify CBRRA’s attitude as expressed herein. It has received endless complaints from these same people in respect of loud party functions which have been held at the proposed venue over the years.. These have usually been one at a time and not over the currently proposed long hours and definitely not for nine nightswith such long hours each time.

CBRRA understands the advantages of good publicity for Cape Town etc, but it maintains that the inconvenience to the area and neigbours is too big an ask.

With the greatest respect and with due regard to the convenience and comfort of surrounding neighbours, CBBRA insists that the organisers seek some other well spaced out site – preferably not in Camps Bay – attractive and seeming suitable although it seems to the applicants.

Spectacular houses at the far Sandy Bay end of Llandudno strike CBBRRA as being vastly superior from an outlook and logistics point of view.

Kind regards,

Chris Willemse

Chairman

CBRRA

On 2011/09/14 9:49 AM, "Arafat Davids" wrote:

From: Arafat Davids

Sent: 13 September 2011 08:46 AM

To: Marga Haywood; Dale Hillebrand; Paul Stevens; Chris Atkins; Henry Du Plessis

Subject: FW: Filming the reality show " The Batchelor"

Good morning

Could you please advise/comment if its possible.

Arafat

Film & Events Office

From: Thobela Oliphant

Sent: 13 September 2011 07:45 AM

To: Arafat Davids

Subject: FW: Filming the reality show " The Batchelor"

From: Derek Raeburn [mailto:derekr@tiscali.co.za]

Sent: 12 September 2011 04:51 PM

To: Film Permit

Subject: Filming the reality show " The Batchelor"

Hi Arafat

Herewith the information I have up to now on the applications to film the Batchelor. Please let me know any concerns as soon as possible.

Thanks

Derek

Hi Arafat

As discussed on the recce, Triasphere will be facilitating a reality show for Germany called “The Batchelor”.The show is about a single man who goes out on dates with 20 girls, (separately) and then eliminates the contenders until three are left. He then goes on three dream dates and picks his partner.

We have two main locations. One is for the batchelor to live and entertain the girls in and the other is for the girls to live in. Our batchelors home where the main action takes place is 21 Fulham road Camps Bay. The girls home is Constantia valley lodge 18 Wycombe Avenue Constantia.

We will have camera teams following the girls and interviewing them in their Lodge in Constantia but this is all based on the property. Most of the action however will take place at the Fulham road house. We will have nine nights called , The night of the roses. This is when they have contestants voted out. These are the big nights and obviously more crew and equipment will be involved. The following dates are proposed for the nights of the roses: Sun 9 October (Rehearsal Evening)

Mon 10 October

Sat 15 October

Wed 19 October

Sat 22 October

Tuesday 25 October

Sat 12 November

Tues 15 November

To achieve these evenings we would set up at approx 12h00 am and shoot until approx 04h00 am. As the show progresses and the contestants get less so the shoots will finish earlier in the evenings. We would also request intermittent lock off in Fulham road when shooting. Would it be possible to get the trees opposite the house in Fulham road trimmed?

I am aware of the sensitivity of the homeowners in both Constantia and Camps Bay and would therefore like to get our application forwarded to the Camps Bay Homeowners association and the Camps Bay business Forum. I am also aware that to shoot these hours would require concurrence forms from the residents. I would be happy to have a meeting with all relevant parties to discuss the project. We are also willing to rent available properties in the neighbouring area to use as catering/Wardrobe/Make up areas to minimize the impact of the shoot on the immediate residents.

In conclusion we will shoot Cape Town for Cape Town and the batchelor will be taking the girls on dates all over Cape Town thereby showcasing all our beautiful city has to offer. This programme will go out to Europe and various channels ensuring we get major publicity as a city.

I will be able to be more specific about crew numbers and vehicles, unit bases etc. once we have spoken to the various parties and have a plan in place. Please forward this to the relevant people as it is urgent that we know where we stand regarding permissions and permits etc.

Please let me know if you need any more information and I will be happy to supply you with what I know so far. I would also be available at any time to meet with residents and so forth.

Many Thanks

Derek Raeburn

Unit Manager

30 years of Atlantic Sun

2011-09-16T18:49:00.001+02:00

Published in the Atlantic Sun 30th Anniversary edition 1 Sept 2011

Cellphone masts on top of agenda

2011-09-08T23:40:00.001+02:00

Published in the Atlantic Sun on 8 Sep 2011

The vexed question of cell masts – described as "invasive and potentially dangerous installations" – was dealt with at the special meeting of the Good Hope Sub Council 16 held in Hout Bay on Thursday August 25. On this occasion the decision went the the "greens". Read more ‹‹here››

Click on the article below to enlarge:

Atlantic Sun 2011-09-08: Mansion causes tension

2011-09-08T19:47:00.001+02:00

Published in the Atlantic Sun 8 Sept 2011

Some Camps Bay residents hope a five-star "party house" will be blocked from continuing to cause noise and parking hassles. Anton Bredell, MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning will make a decision about whether the residential premises in Fulham Road can be used for business. Residents lodged 34 objections with the City of Cape Town after MA Smith, a town and regional planner, applied for the removal of the title deed restrictions for the property. ‹‹read more››

Click on the article to enlarge:

Manco 2011-2012

2011-09-06T20:17:00.003+02:00

PORTFOLIO ALLOCATIONS

Chair

Chris Willemse

cnwillemse@gmail.com

Vice-chair

Michelle Harvey

michele@tictac.co.za

Vice-chair

John Powell

poweltalk@icon.co.za

Environmental and Heritage

Johan Van Papendorp (Chair)

jvp@ovp.co.za

Trudi Groenewald

groensee@new.co.za

Sandy van Hoogstraten

sandy@palmtreehouse.co.za

Planning

Chris Willemse (chair)

John Powell

Trudi Groenewald

Johan Van Papendorp

Brenda Herbert

Cleansing & Properties (Sportsfields)

Trudi Groenewald

groensee@new.co.za

PR & Communication

Alma Horn

almahorn@gmail.com

John Powell

poweltalk@icon.co.za

Finance

John Powell

poweltalk@icon.co.za

Clifton representative (excl. bungalows)

Helet Merkling

merk@mweb.co.za

Treasurer

Mary Lloyd

hooba@iafrica.com

Membership

Gus Millner

gus.millner@campsbaywatch.org

Signage/Events

Brenda Herbert

brenda@herbert.co.za

Minutes Secretary

Chrissie Phillips

splodge@mweb.co.za

WARD FORUM & SUB COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES

Sub Council

Chris Willemse

cnwillemse@gmail.com

John Powell

poweltalk@icon.co.za

Police Forum

Brenda Herbert

brenda@herbert.co.za

Leigh Goldschmidt (CBCM)

leigh@cbcm.org.za

It was agreed to leave the ward forum representation until later when advertised

Sandy paints Camps Bay High green

2011-09-02T20:44:00.000+02:00

Published in the Atlantic Sun 1 Sept 2011

Sandy van Hoogstraten is a member of the CBRRA Manco in our Environmental portfolio.

Click on the article to enlarge.

CBRRA creates the new Camps Bay CBD

2011-09-01T18:52:00.000+02:00

Published in the Atlantic Sun 30th Anniversary edition 1 Sept 2011

Established at the beginning of the twentieth century, Camps Bay and environs developed very slowly from being a holiday camping resort located around Central Drive to a sleepy dormitory suburb which, by the 1980s, was in a bedraggled and disco-ordinated state through which most people drove to somewhere else. In peoples’ mind, the wind blew too hard and the water was far too cold! Up to 1980, very few properties in Camps Bay changed hands for over R 100 000.

In the early 1980s, the huge and then legal Sonnekus apartment block was constructed to residents’ absolute horror when they discovered that the whole of the Camps Bay beachfront area permitted seven storeys buildings and we could have another Sea Point on our doorstep unless something was done about this.

It took the Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA) three years to get the City Council to amend its planning zoning scheme to reduce the maximum heights of buildings in Camps Bay to not exceeding 10 metres above ground level to eaves and lower in Bakoven.

However, at that time, a Developer had already submitted an application to the City Council to demolish the Rotunda Hotel and the very historic adjacent Rotunda ballroom erected in 1904 as a concert hall and tea room and to erect a massive new apartment block over the whole site. At this stage CBRRA took matters into it own hands and, after considerable discussions with residents, persuaded the City Council to:

1. Expropriate the Rotunda site and buildings,

2. Demolish the nearby ugly and seldom-used Civic Centre

3. Relocate the Caltex Garage away from the intersection at the bottom of Camps Bay Drive with Victoria Road to enable traffic lights to be installed there.

4. Consolidate the existing land the Council owned in the vicinity and invite a public proposal call for designs and cash offers for the whole site which now embraced all the above. CBRRA wrote the specification for the tenders and was co-opted onto the judging committee to help the Council choose the winning proposal.

The current Bay Hotel and the shopping complex was the result and the tender was won by Developers Equikor Ltd who sold the shopping complex to the Pretoria Municipal Pension Fund who added to it as did the Solomon Brothers who subsequently purchased it while the Bay Hotel was purchased by Maree Brink. At the same time CBRRA persuaded the Council to double the area of the soccer fields by altering the one small east – west field into two north-south fields.

The sum total of all the above was that a completely modernised central business district was created for Camps Bay and the previously quiet village has since then expanded its population dramatically and property values have sky – rocketed to a degree that the whole area stretching from Clifton to Bakoven now contains arguably the most coveted residential real estate properties in the country, with their unequalled beaches the jewels in the crown of Cape Town’s tourist industry.

CBRRA’s most sincere aim is to ensure that the rebuilding and densification of the residential component o these beautiful suburbs over the forthcoming years will be executed in a sensitive manner which will fit in with the existing built environment to the benefit of existing and new owners alike.

Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association.

Camps Bay's Finest Hour

2011-09-01T18:51:00.000+02:00

Published in the Atlantic Sun 30th Anniversary edition 1 Sept 2011

Long before F. W. De Klerk heralded the transformation of South Africa in 1990 by freeing Nelson Mandela and unbanning the ANC, the Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA), after a very hectic public meeting, decided in the early 1980s that the continuing banning of people of colour from beaches and Camps Bay’s beaches in particular was totally unacceptable.

It approached the then Provincial Administrator Gene Louw and Nationalist Party Minster Piet Koornhof in the early 1980s to permit Camps Bay to open its beaches to all. This permission was cautiously given on condition that CBRRA did not make it officially known.

When the public at large learned that this beach was opened to all, the first December holiday season was absolutely chaotic, with huge crowds, mass misbehaviour (braais were permitted on the beach in those days) overcrowding and general intolerance.

At the end of the season the then government insisted that a 2 metre high fence be erected to enclose half of the main beachfront with a R2 entry fee! The result of this absurd situation resulted in the whole of the previous year’s crowd squeezing into the free half of the beach and hardly any bathers at all using the pay section (see photograph)

At the end of the second holiday season, CBRRA persuaded the government to remove the fence, open the beach and ban braais to reduce misbehaviour.

Camps Bay main beach was the first beach in South Africa to be opened to all races in the modern era, when apartheid was at its height. Within two years, long before the government disappeared, and in spite of the relevant restrictive apartheid laws still being in place, every beach in South Africa was opened to all races, thus helping to starting the reform impetus which led to F.W De Klerk being able to do what he did.

The fence? To this day it exists in the vicinity of the Edgar Lipsett Oval and Maidens Cove, a monument to the splendid example of racial tolerance initiated by Camps Bay.

John Powell

Vice Chairperson

CBRRA

Tony Press encourages membership

2011-08-20T10:15:00.002+02:00

16 August 2011

Hi All,

I went to the Camps bay Ratepayers Association meeting yesterday and thought I should send you all a reminder to please contribute to this very worthwhile and important association. My view is that it is our duty as Camps Bay residents to all be members of this association.

The meeting gave a good insight into the very important functions that are being performed by the committee for the good of our community. We are lucky to have such dedicated and responsible group of people that are prepared to contribute most of their spare time in the service of our community. I was very perturbed to hear how few of our community are paid up members of the association, given that the fee for membership is just R200 per year. This is surely a pittance given the work that is being done on our behalf.

It is vital, if we want the environment in which to live, to be pristine, safe and desirable, that all the community supports CBRRA.

You can see from the agenda below that actions are needed on all fronts to protect our beautiful village.

Please, if you aren’t already members, sign up, or if you have simply forgotten to renew your membership (as we had done) please pay now.

Regards,

Tony Press

Census 2011

2011-08-20T10:11:00.002+02:00

For applicants to work on the Census 2011:

The people will be trained from 19 August onwards, until 22 August 2011.

They will then go out and do listing from 24 until 10 September 2011.

They will be employed on a daily basis and be paid accordingly for the 18 days.

The majority of them will become supervisors from September onwards and will be employed for a month and half.

Attached is copy of the application form that must be completed.

We are looking at employing about 70 people from the Camps Bay, Sea Point areas.

The following must be included: (Certified copies)

- ID

- Drivers license

- qualifications

Click on the image below to enlarge:

Have Your Say: Cell Mast

2011-08-20T09:18:00.009+02:00

18 AUGUST:

Herewith our first set of objections from Iilonke to the draft policy.

Read the Draft Telecommunication Infrastructure Policy ‹‹here››.

Please review and revert as we are on a strict deadline on this one I need your input.

Michele Harvey

LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS:

1. From: Richard Bendel

Further to the CBRRA AGM held on Monday night, I was told to submit a report on the blog relating to the cell mast at the Shell garage. I went onto the blog, but couldn’t see where I needed to submit this report. I am therefore sending it to you.

I bought my house in March 2003 and moved in in October 2003. At no time was I made aware that there was a cell mast at the Shell garage (which as you know is next door to me). I was actually only made aware of this when an estate agent brought someone to view my house a couple of months ago and this person saw this cell mast. I was a bit taken aback since it was the first time I was made aware of this fact.

I subsequently did some investigations and spoke to Andre van Heerden from MTN who sent me some information regarding the Health and Safety aspects of cell masts. This obviously says that there is no evidence that there is a direct link between ill health and cell masts. I did also speak to Joan Ross from Shell who weren’t keen on telling me anything regarding their lease agreement with MTN. I do understand that the initial lease was for a period of 9 years and 11 months (a commercial lease can’t be for 10 years or more) and that MTN had an option to renew. I am not sure on the dates of these agreements.

Since I have 2 very young kids, I obviously would not like them to be exposed to any potentially harmful radiation and would therefore like further investigation done into the terms of this cell mast, whether this was done legally, etc.

Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Regards

Richard Bendel CA (SA)

2. From: Ilonka Neuwald

Dear Michele,

Thanks for supporting us, below is the report on Marine Heights (Upper Tree Road 36) and also 50 signatures from concerned residence who want to have the antennas removed. I also enclose some pictures of the equipment containers in the basement of Marin Heights and a photo, where you can see the antennas and 2 letters of tenants who moved out.

Regards

Ilonka

REPORT

“Marine Heights“

Regarding: “Marine Heights”

36 Upper Tree Rd

Camps Bay 8005

ERF 355

- Owner of Marine Heights (according title deeds) Mr Egbert Raymond Hering

- Rentals and maintenance of Marine Heights managed by Trafalgar

- Cell Antennas (all applications) managed by Warren Petterson (021-5525255)

on behalf of Mr Hering

About the current situation:

Marine Heights is a 3 storey Building, where about 12 families reside.

In the basement are 3 equipment-containers:

- 1 x Cell C

- 1 x Vodacom

- and 1x another container which is currently not in use

Each of the used containers is fenced by massive metal poles.

Everywhere are signs up that it is strictly prohibited to enter as it is dangerous due to radiation

On the roof on Marine Heights there are currently 7 Cell Antennas.

The building which is in poor maintenance state bristles of antennas, wires and satellite bowls.

Wherever you look at the building there is electronic equipment attached, it s like mushrooming and the owner comes up - almost every year - with applications for new and more antennas.

The access to the equipment containers used to be via a little drive off Upper Tree Rd. The owner himself sold the drive (as far as we know in 1996) to Quick Investment.

Mr Paul Ammann is meanwhile the sole owner of the property, which forms a new ERF 3248, including the drive. The drive via his property is the only access to the equipment containers in the basement of Marine Heights.

He clearly stated in several letters, that he is the owner of the drive and he won t allow access. This is constantly ignored by installation companies and it seems like, that the City Council is still not aware of the fact (or ignoring it) that there is in the mean time no access any more to the containers, in case of emergencies (e.g. in case of fire or just for maintenance work).

When the Vodacom and Cell C containers became installed, no one of the neighbours received any letters of the city council to get a change to object. We would like to raise the question whether this was legal to erect equipment without letting know the neighbourhood.

The contract of the one container( Vodacom as we can remember) was signed in Feb 2004. We could have a look at the file at the City Council with Ernest Kajabo who was that time in charge for the project. The contract was for temporary use (5 years)( Mr Solomon from City Council could verify all the facts) so it should be renewed in Feb 2009, which as far as we can say, was never done. Nobody from all our neighbours got ever notice. We went numberless to the city council, but it was useless, they were not able (or did not want) to assist us. The file number of this project was LM 152739.

Ernest Kajabo ( kajabo.ngendahimana@capetown.gov.za) could give us in 2008 the above file number, but he is unfortunately not any more in charge for this file, so we could not get to further information to do inquires what happened to the renewal of the temporary contract.

Later on when we went to the City Council to do further inquiries about the File and the Vodacom Container, the file was disappeared, the above mentioned file number was not showing up on the City Councils computer program and nobody could remember about anything. Other consultants claimed a couple of months later, that the above mentioned file number was never referring to the Voda Com Container but to the application to the Cell C Container.

So the question arises: Was there ever done any application for the Vodacom Container, including all the antennas?

On the 17th of October 2007 and in 2008 ( on the 28th of May) the owner came up with new projects: He wanted to have 8 huge poles ( I-Burst) on the roof of M.H installed, each of them 5 meters high.

Again all the neighbours objected, our letters were accompanied by a letter from the Camps Bay Ratepayers Association. We were lucky, the City Council decided in favour for us not to allow such installation. The application was closed in 2009-08-25.

In 2009 -08-06 the owner applied for a 4th equipment container and for 2 new cell antennas (MWeb). LM 2377(179395).

Again all residents, living in our neighbourhood objected and our letters were accompanied by a letter from the CBRRA –

Mrs Beverley Soares from the City Council was in charge of this application

(Tel:021-400-6456).

In May 20011 we received an invitation to the Sub Council, were all concerned neighbours joined up, we also had a lawyer joining us.

The judge decided in favour for us, it refused the application for further antennas.

The latest application (LM 179395) came in on 06-08-2009, again for Cell C.

The owner applied for an extension for his Cell c antennas.

The letter did not say for how many years he is applying for. When we went to the City Council (they never pick up the phone, so we always have to take time to drive there), the lady at the desk told us, it is usually for 5 years, but it was nowhere written.

The plans, attached to the application letter of the owner of Marine Heights, where absolutely irritating !

The City Council provided us with plans, which where not accurate: For example:

The containers on the draft are placed on the wrong sides and it is not clear which of the installations are already existing and which they plan to add. In addition to this, half of the copy with important facts about height and size was just cut off. Further on it was written that the access to the containers is via Upper Tree Rd., which is just to say: wrong! The only access Road is via the property of Paul Ammann.

All the neighbours again objected, we handed in again a new letter of the Tax and Rate Payer Association, a copy of the letter from Paul Ammann, various maps and sketches, which show that this is a dense populated residential area and all the antennas are too close to our homes.

Barabara Rogiers (Director of Pam Golding, she lives on the backside of Marine Heights) organized a lawyer, who handed in a letter (29 of March 2010) including a CD, showing clearly the negative health affects if you live too close to Cell Antennas.

The Letters were addressed to the applicant Mr Warren Petterson and to Mr Hering, Egbert Raymond (Title Deeds show that he is obviously the owner of M.H).

John van der Vyver( who also lives opposite the antennas of Marine Heights) wrote a letter to the ombudsman on12th of May 2010 and Paul Ammann sent again a letter (13th of May2010) stating clearly the the only access drive is via is own property, which he categorically will not allow.

We got no response.

Our Main Concerns are:

Health risks – it s not proven that radiation of cell antennas are harmful, but it is also not proven, that they are not harmful, therefore we would like to have them removed.

Research projects have shown there are definitely long term risks to the health, especially for children, we receive the radiation since 10 years, which is definitely not acceptable!

The Antennas are too close to the homes in our neighbourhood:

Usually you find such antenna installations on top of multi-storey buildings, so that the houses and residents around are not in direct touch with the radiation. As we live on a slope, we are at the same level (height) with the antennas and receive the radiation straight into our homes.

The only access road to the antennas and equipment containers is via P.Ammanns property, which he does not allow. So how can the City Council allow such installation without any access in case of emergency.

On Sat. 9th of May a truck came to offload 3 new Cell Antennas, which we think was illegal.

They installed all the 3 new antennas, when we asked them they told us it’s the same stuff, just “new technology”.

Later on some neighbours and me went again to the constructor workers. When we asked them they told us, its “good stuff” because with these newly installed antennas you can also have internet access on your Cell Phones.

The size of the 3 new antennas was about double size from the old ones.

It happened already twice that Cell companies arrange the workers for new installation over the weekend, well aware of the fact that we are hands bound, because the City Council is not reachable over this time.

They started always in very early morning on a Saturday, working till late and it was already dark, when they finished that day, then completing final works the whole Sunday…by Monday everything was always done and there was no change to call an inspector from the City Council on site as they (e.g. Mr Stephen Wilkinson 021-4006483 from the planning department/City Council) recommended us.

So to come back to the antennas, we came to the conclusion, it was not at all just about to ”replace things” it was clearly an up gradual!

We thought that any changes have to be registered at the City Council and you have to get permission for it.

Unfortunately the City Council was not able to answer us these questions.

Meanwhile the City Council finalized the decision about the already existing Cell Antennas to get him permission.

It is really irritating how the City Council can decide in May 2011 for “no antennas” because they would have been mounted right on the outside wall of the flats of Marine Heights, and 1 month later in June 2011 the same council allows continuance for the existing antennas although they are also mounted right at the outside wall of the flats. If you open the flats windows, the antenna is so close, you can touch it!!

Luckily the letter was accompanied by a letter to oppose the decision!

Unfortunately just view residents were provided by this letter and the time to respond was nearly less then 10 days, as the letter was delivered so late (the date it was written was already 2 weeks before we received it!!)

So we rushed to make lots of copies and distributed them to the neighbours.

Unfortunately in this time of the year lots of people are overseas and we could not get hold of them, but we tried to do our best.

So, this is “our story” and we are meanwhile sick and tired of it! –

By the way: The tenants of the whole ground floor from Marine Heights have meanwhile moved out. Also the other tenant from the corner flat, where some of the antennas are mounted at, moved out. The flat has not been occupied up till now.

These tenants were complaining about sleeping disorders and were worried about health concerns. The baby of another couple had continuously a rush. They told the other neighbours, once they had moved to another place, the rush completely disappeared.

They provided us with letters to confirm these facts.

We really don t know, what else we can undertake to have the antennas removed.

The only hope we have now, is to have the new draft policy implemented which is not allowing such a installation in too close proximity to homes.

We are all within 50 m radius, the antennas can be touched from the flats windows and the whole building bristles with cables.

Regards,

Ilonka Neuwald and Markus Ratschiller (49 Upper tree Road)

3, 4 Letters from Werner Kover and Louis Stoltz

Here the 2 letters of some of the tenants who moved out, today I saw, that now both flats on the corner of Marine Heights on the 2nd floor where the antennas were mounted are moved out and also the guy, who lived like exactly on the equipment containers, and by the way, we we did all the work recently going from house to house door speaking with our neighbours about the antennas and collecting nearly 50 signatures...the City Council counted this collection of signatures only as 1 letter. Can you belive!!

When they showed us the draft which they had sent to the Sub Council, it was saying only 7 objection letters where received. When we went there and asked how it come, if we already had handed in nearly 50 signatures including a comment from each single person, who signed, they told us, now they regarded this as one letter, but if the subcouncil wants to see the signatures, they kept it for this case!

We always believed in their slpgan, "The City cares for you", but this was pure fraud...we are all paying monthly tax and rates and they want to have every year more of our money, but if we need their help they are supporting a single person like Mr Egbert Hering who earns a fortune by Cell C and Voda Com for each antenna. Some of the neighbours also got an offer to install such antennas on his roof and they offered him R 125.000 a year!! - It s a business - in a residential area, it contradicts to the title deeds of Marine heights (we fetched them from plainstreet)where they write on page 5:

"that no noisome, injurious or objectionable trade, business of any kind shall be carried on in any such dwelling house...and such erf shall at all times be kept in such a state as not to be a nuisance or annoyance to persons using the roads or to neighbours".

The Consultant at City Council (Asanda Solombela) did not show much interest to this section of title deeds, telling us:"antennas are not a business, it means the owner is not allowed to open for example something like a car washing garage business or a tak shop selling cigaretts...".All our neighbours are obviously of a different opinion to Mrs Asanda Solombelas, we find the antennas are a nuisance and annoyance to all of us, and what else than a "business" is it, to earn more then R 500.000 a year and to use like 20 squaremeters space for equipment container installations, this space is indeed like an office.

Regards

Ilonka Neuwald

Have Your Say: Converted Zoning Map

2011-08-20T09:11:00.000+02:00

CBRRA comment on Appeal Erf 1565, 5 Theresa Ave

2011-08-20T09:08:00.003+02:00

18 JULY 2011

The Director: Integrated Environmental Management

Dept of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

PGWC

1 Dorp Street

Cape Town 8001

FAX: 021 483 3098

Dear Sir/Madam

APPEAL ito of LUPO 15/85 : APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION & CONSENT USE

FILEREF : LM 4737

APPLICANT : TOMMY BRUMMER TOWN PLANNERS

OWNER : AJ MILES

ERF : 1565

LOCATION : 5 THERESA AVE

SUBURB : CAMPS BAY

The CBRRA strongly supports the City of Cape Town’s decision to refuse this application.

As a preamble, it must be noted, with great concern, that both the Section Head and District Manager of the City’s Land Use Management Branch signed off on the recommendation for approval of a double dwelling on the one sub-divided erf, to the Good Hope Sub Council (GHSC), despite the fact that the Provincial Minister had expressly forbidden it. The letter from the Directorate Integrated Environmental Management dated 07 October 2010 clearly states that the condition E.(5).(b) – the single dwelling restriction – be removed, to be re-imposed again on the newly created erven (the Department’s emphasis). Not only does this letter occupy a prominent position in the application document and shouldn’t have been missed, but the Minister’s decision is recorded on page 1 of a 2-page letter that is in double spaced type and abundantly clear.

The CBRRA requests that the circumstances surrounding such dereliction on the part of the LUM of the City and an experienced architect in private practice be investigated as this could be a case of a condoned irregular application.

That this application was incorrect has been conceded repeatedly by the Applicant in his submission. However, the Applicant appears to now blame the GHSC for making a fatally flawed decision rather than look at the actual situation: The Provincial Minister’s decision not to remove the single dwelling restriction meant that this application needed to be re-advertised to reflect the new reality of the amended title deed restrictions applicable to the erf. To argue that this becomes a de facto lesser application (2 units in lieu of 3), and therefore legitimate, is trite and not supported by any legislation. Applications must be advertised for what is applied, not for what might be an eventual outcome. Clearly, it is impossible to apply one’s mind to an inaccurate application and this process must now be considered fatally flawed. If circumstances change during the application period, especially if this is due to administrative action, then the revised application must be advertised ab initio.

It was established at the GHSC meeting convened to hear this matter that the sub-division would result in too much densification and that the concerns of the Environmental Management Branch regarding green corridors, space for planting and the urban edge were not adequately addressed. The City has every right and is, indeed, mandated to consider and protect the built environment from over densification that results in the loss of a proper urban edge. The Applicant’s argument, that the Minister gave this point detailed examination, in terms of the broad ambit of the Removal of Restrictions Act, is fanciful. In fact, the Applicant concedes that he is only “of the opinion” that the Minister gave “adequate consideration” to this aspect.

The Applicant further argues against the “too much densification” by referring to the various policy guidelines currently in place viz. the MSDF and the MuniSDF which are claimed to support densification. It is common cause that these documents are in favour of densification but it must be borne in mind that these are merely broad brush-stroke policies that encourage densification along established transport corridors to maximize existing infrastructure. This very argument was placed before the WC High Court in the CBRRA vs RBC Subeleven matter. Mr Justice Bennie Griesel ruled that to equate the goals of such policy documents with the financial rewards of an owner increasing the rights on his property in an upmarket area such as Camps Bay was untenable. The argument was rejected in its entirety. The Province and the City are bound by this judgement.

The Applicant also refers to the Provincial Urban Edge Guidelines requiring that such developments must highlight any compatibilities between the proposed use and the existing urban edge. It is then suggested that the result of the sub-division will be a low density single dwelling development. However, the plans submitted with the application are no longer valid (the double dwelling is not permitted by right) and are reference plans only in the first instance. When pressed to supply a proposed a new development plan/envelope by the CBRRA, the Owner refused. It may well be that plans for two massive, inappropriate buildings, on the urban edge, be submitted if the sub-division is approved prior to formal plan submission and there will be no recourse for the City or the community.

This clearly puts the GHSC decision in its correct perspective: The Owner must submit a new application for the sub-division that includes accurate and binding plans. The Removal of Restrictions phase has been completed and the situation that now exists is not that contemplated by the original application – especially in terms of the Zoning Scheme.

The Western Cape High Court judgement (Case 6866/04 Bloubergstrand) handed down by Mr Justice Yekiso has established that applications must conform with all applicable law before the relevant Authority may consider them. Clearly this application does not comply and as such cannot be considered until all affected parties have waived their rights to the concessions sought. This ruling was not simply about a height restriction, as incorrectly stated by both the original Applicant and the City planners.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (in the True Motives vs Madhi case # 543/07) has also added that such a proposal must be considered ito s7 of the National Building Regulations and Standards Act, when the application does not conform with all applicable law. In this specific instance, the building will derogate from the value of affected neighbours’ properties and of the urban edge if the sub-division is granted and therefore planning permission must be denied.

The above two reported cases represent established case law in this country. However much a local authority might feel that such rulings undermine their competence or independence in terms of LUPO, the fact remains that planning officials have to respect such case law. It is clear that in this case the officials have ignored case law and that the GHSC has been presented with an application for approval that is ultra vires.

Given the prominence of this erf on the urban edge and bordering the National Park, it is suggested that the City also advertise this application in terms of s7 of the NBR.

In conclusion, the Provincial Minister dealt with the application in terms of the Removal of Restrictions Act and the City must now deal with the results of that administrative action. Following from that, it is clear that the GHSC has exercised its powers correctly in terms of the competency of the City and its decision is sound and should stand. It is a non sequitur that the City must simply reach the same decision as the Minister regarding a sub-division. Each Authority is assessing the application against different parameters, one being the Zoning Scheme and the other being the Removal of Restrictions Act.

Regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE

CHAIRPERSON

CBRRA contact: Chris Willemse Mobile 0836536363 Fax 021 4380703

cc The Director: Planning & Building Development Management Cape Town Region

Box 4529

Cape Town 8000

Attn Mr Kajabo Ngendahimana

Cllr Beverley Schafer address public at CBRRA AGM 2011

2011-08-16T18:30:00.002+02:00

Members of the Camps Bay Ratepayers, Cllr Haywood, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It’s with great pleasure that I stand before you this evening as one of your newly elected councillors. For those that had a direct influence on my getting elected, I would like to thank you for the support. I am the Ward Councillor for Ward 54 which runs from Green Point/Mouille Point stretching all the way to the northern part of Camps Bay. In other words, I am responsible for the area that is commonly known as the Atlantic Seaboard.

I have spent the past three months getting to grips with all aspects the ward, and have inherited five ratepayers associations, all of which bring their own issues to the table and to which I am held to account. Some of these are specific to their area but most run as a common thread throughout the ward. I also regularly attend the various Community Police Forums and have good working relationships with both community watch and the various law enforcement departments throughout the Atlantic Seaboard.

The issue of the homeless living on the streets and in public open spaces along the Atlantic Seaboard is something that I have decided to really focus on. While this problem has been a long standing one, there is been a noticeable increase all along the urban fringes but particularly around the city and tourist areas.

The problem has largely been pushed onto law enforcement to sort out. However while there is a law enforcement component, the problem is most definitely a social one and one that very often is contributed by residents and tourists who are in the area.

I spent time with Law enforcement officers going into the field to see for myself what we were dealing with and exactly what the effect of the homeless has had on our many open spaces as you will see from the presentation. The effects of people living in our public open spaces have also been of great concern. I would say that we have an environmental crisis’s in places such as the lookout point in Clifton towards Bantry Bay; the area between Kloof Rd and Victoria Drive and parts of the Glen and National park area.

Without managing the social aspect of the problem, the street people will not go away. So how do we do this?

Or first step therefore, is to employ a social or outreach worker for the Camps Bay/Clifton area. Fieldworkers are information gatherers & first line resource to a “street person”. They work alongside them, building up cases on the individuals involved which requires the careful and dedicated information building, noting all arrests and offences; finding out about how the person came to be on the street and then assisting them according to their individual’s needs.

The field worker works closely with law enforcement, your CPF and community watch. He or she works a combination of day and night shifts and is on call to assist wherever possible.

Once that person is in place, we then can begin a managed plan which will see a steady decline in the homeless situation over a 36 month period.

Integrated with this plan, needs to be a very thorough clean-up of our spaces and then using law enforcement have a zero tolerance approach when all systems are in place.

So how can you the resident assist to make this happen.

Well, firstly I am appealing for funding of R60 000 so that we can have a field worker employed by Oct before the season begins.
Secondly, I would like to have signage put in place for tourists to see around the idea of “giving money creates more street people, instead making a donation to one of our night shelters”
Thirdly, I have an allocation of 100 lockable wheelie bins that is available to be used as a pilot project. If you would like to be the area where the pilot is run, we will have to ensure that 10 residents all live within the same streets or area which I believe will assist a great deal. I can discuss this further with the ratepayers association to see if we can implement it here.

Finally I will be running a monthly open session called, “Meet your Councillor” at the Sea Point library for anyone who would like to see me. The first session will happen on 26th August from 10h30 till 12h30. I am always available by phone or email and will with Cllr Haywood assist wherever possible to ensure you continue to live in one of our jewels of the city.

I thank you.

Cllr Beverley Schafer

City declares dispute with SANRAL

2011-08-16T18:28:00.001+02:00

CITY OF CAPE TOWN

MEDIA RELEASE

16 AUGUST 2011

City declares dispute with SANRAL to prevent tolling of important Cape Town roads

The City of Cape Town’s Mayoral Committee Member for Transport, Roads and Stormwater, Councillor Brett Herron, has written a formal letter to Transport Minister Sbu Ndebele to inform him that the City has declared an intergovernmental dispute with the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) regarding its plans to toll the N1 and N2 between the City and the Cape Winelands.

The City is opposed to these plans and has declared the dispute in terms of the Intergovernmental Relations Framework, Act 13 of 2005 as it believes that both the Environmental Impact Assessment and Intent to Toll processes were flawed and that SANRAL has not addressed the City’s concerns.

The City has four primary concerns about the tolling of the two main routes into Cape Town:

The socio-economic impacts of tolling have not been adequately assessed and were not considered by the Minister of Environmental Affairs when he granted an environmental authorisation for the tolling of the N1 and N2.
The broad impact on the metropolitan road network has not been assessed and viable alternatives to tolling have not been considered.
The tolling on the N1 and N2 is likely to divert traffic onto municipal roads which will impact on the capacity, operation and maintenance required on these roads. This will stretch the City’s limited budget for road maintenance and construction as SANRAL has not committed any funding to cover the increased maintenance costs.
The City’s Policy on the Provision of Road Tolls indicates that tolling should not be used as a means of funding road construction and maintenance within the City’s boundaries because it is not cost effective and is inequitable.

According to Councillor Herron the City had no choice but to declare an official dispute, as all repeated attempts to engage SANRAL regarding this matter have failed.

“As the authority that will be directly impacted by this proposed tolling, the City commented extensively during all the phases of both the Environmental Impact Assessment and Intent to Toll public participation process and engaged with SANRAL at various intergovernmental meetings held during 2010 to raise our concerns. We also tried to engage them on a number of occasions this year in attempts to resolve our dispute. SANRAL refused to discuss the City’s concerns and indicated that they are only willing to explain their policies and strategies. Our letter to the Minister is our last attempt at resolving this dispute before taking legal action,” said Herron.

In a letter that was sent to the SANRAL CEO last week, the City requested an urgent meeting with SANRAL and also requested them to postpone the awarding of the tender for the N1/N2 toll road project to allow for further consultation between the City and SANRAL regarding the City’s concerns.

“The City hopes that this dispute can be resolved amicably, but we are going to take any necessary steps to prevent the toll roads from being constructed without the City’s concerns being adequately addressed. Cape Town residents should not be compelled to subsidise the entire N1/N2 Winelands toll route. It is inequitable. The additional costs imposed on road users within the City will far exceed the limited benefit they receive.”

End

Issued by: Communication Department, City of Cape Town

Media enquiries: Councillor Brett Herron, Mayoral Committee Member: Transport, Roads and Stormwater, City of Cape Town, Tel: 021 400 1298 or Cell: 082 518 3264

Shireen Maggott

Secretary to Marius Coetsee

Manager: Good Hope Sub Council 16

11th Floor - 44 Wale Street

Cape Town

Tel : (021) 487 2201

Fax: (021) 487 2208

e-mail: Shireen.Maggott@capetown.gov.za

"Sub-councils: Here to serve you well"

Cllr Marga Haywood Address at CBRRA AGM

2011-08-16T06:51:00.005+02:00

Cllr Marga Haywood addressed residents at last night's AGM with reference to her own journey through a few linked events, namely the announcement by the Mayor re house subsidiaries, an email stalker, an European trip with tourists from welfare orientated countries, the London riots and the gunman of Norway. She referred to the latest newsletter from Mayor Patricia de Lille, and confirmed her commitment to serving this community, as any other.

Cape Town This Week: A weekly newsletter by the Executive Mayor of Cape Town, Alderman Patricia de Lille

With opportunity comes responsibility

12 AUGUST 2011

Many of us have been watching the events in London and other parts of the United Kingdom over the past week with great interest and some dismay. It is not usual to see scenes of sustained riots and violence in one of the world’s great metropolises.

Furthermore, when one is in city government, there is a particular interest in understanding the dynamics of urban violence and alleged protests, wherever they may occur.

Because of their unusual nature, many of us have been left asking questions about the London riots. What caused them to occur? What motivated the mostly young people to take to the streets? What lessons should other cities learn from London?

These are all cogent questions which cities must ask themselves, especially in the light of the fact that, in global relative terms, London is very wealthy. It is well-serviced with community and social resources, thus lacking many of the more obvious triggers for social violence that are present in largely developing cities.

Some commentators have postulated that the protests speak to greater forces of social marginalisation; that the supposedly disaffected poor were finding a means to express themselves in a society that had supposedly forgotten them.

I disagree with this analysis. There is a sociological force at work here but it is not the theory of activating for social justice, a theory which, when superficially applied, fundamentally misunderstands deeper social trajectories in action.

I believe that the protests in London are the consequence of an over-saturation of state assistance without responsibility. Furthermore, of opportunities lost by individuals who chose not to use them.

Let us consider certain realities of the protestors. First, they were mostly young people, indeed, some of whom were professionals and had tertiary-level qualifications. Second, these young people engaged in looting of certain high-end goods. Third, they engaged in wanton destruction that did not discriminate large businesses from smaller ones, some of which were owned by poorer immigrants looking for a better life. Fourth, they had no leadership or plan of action. Fifth, they had no agenda or set of demands.

Before people quickly start to make comparisons to the large youthful contingents that overthrew dictators in places like Tunisia and Egypt, let us consider some other social realities.

The United Kingdom constructed one of the largest social welfare states after the Second World War, which increased and became more complex over several decades. That system still remains relatively large and comprehensive even when you factor in the recent economic recession and social spending cuts.

To be poor in Britain means: having access to council housing; having access to welfare; fully subsidised healthcare; subsidised education; social grants; having access to democratic processes and the law; and a range of other social protections.

In relative terms, these are not the conditions facing the disaffected poor in most other locales.

At its core, what the state in the United Kingdom provides is a saturated environment of opportunities.

But the provision of opportunities works two ways: an individual gets a range of mechanisms to help them realise their full potential. The onus is then on the individual to make full use of those opportunities.

Anything else is passive reception of the goods of the state, a maximal dependency that suggests an individual cannot do anything for themselves. More worryingly, when their criminal actions are explained away by ill-examined social platitudes, there is the suggestion that an individual should not do anything for themselves.

This speaks to the heart of the kind of compact we are trying to forge in Cape Town, where this administration is working to build the open, opportunity society for all.

Given our resource constraints, we can only dream of providing such a safety net, but we do much already to assist those most in need of help.

We are doing that by focusing our resources and governance on five key pillars of delivery: the safe city; the opportunity city; the caring city; the inclusive city, and the efficient city.

What we aim to do is roll-back the frontiers of poverty by creating the economic enabling environment in which investment can grow and jobs can be created.

We are doing so through a range of interventions; not least in investing in infrastructure and services, providing resources to safety provision, and activating the Economic Development Agency (EDA) to facilitate the maximisation of our potential.

Furthermore, we will cross-subsidise the poor of this city as much as we can to give direct help to those who need it most.

Every day, this government, and those who work for it, work to make a great city even greater and deliver on our mandate to deliver to all the citizens of Cape Town and make this city one in which individuals can thrive and grow.

We are working to make Cape Town a city of individual opportunity.

But government cannot do everything. We cannot force people to take advantage of the opportunities provided to them. We cannot force them to be responsible actors that see opportunity and take it.

That requires a compact and the tacit understanding that, as government, we do what we can to provide and present individuals with a range of opportunities. It is up to the individuals then to use the tools of the environment created.

There is a moment when societies must decide how they move forward into the future. On the one hand, the road is travelled by government as the dominant actor, which leads a largely dependent citizenry.

On the other hand, there is the better option of moving forward as dynamic partners that realise that we make the future together.

When we fought the struggle for our democracy, we fought for human dignity. That dignity belongs to each individual and it should never be taken from them. But to maintain that dignity and advance it is ultimately the responsibility of each individual.

End

Issued by: Communication Department, City of Cape Town

Media enquiries: Solly Malatsi, Spokesperson for the Executive Mayor of Cape Town, Patricia de Lille, Tel: 021 400 1382 or Cell: 083 943 1449, E-mail: Solly.Malatsi@capetown.gov.za

Alternative arrangements during the strikes

2011-08-16T06:46:00.001+02:00

CITY OF CAPE TOWN

MEDIA RELEASE

12 AUGUST 2011

Heightened security and contingency plans in place for strike action commencing on Monday

The South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) has confirmed that strike action by its members will commence on Monday 15 August 2011.

Last night, the Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union (IMATU) gave notice that strike action by its members will commence on Friday 19 August 2011. Both strikes will run until wage negotiations with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) are finalised. SALGA has confirmed that it cannot afford to meet the wage demands and the duration of the strike is unclear at this stage.

“The City of Cape Town reiterates its position that the wage demands are unrealistic. If implemented they will force the City to reprioritise its budget to meet these wage increases, thereby impacting on service delivery and on the City’s ability to fill vacancies”, said Alderman Demetri Qually, Mayoral Committee Member for Corporate Services.

SAMWU has submitted two march applications to the City for the delivery of memorandums. On Monday 15 August 2011, SAMWU will march to the Civic Centre to hand over a memorandum to the City. SAMWU will again march to the Civic Centre on Tuesday 16 August 2011, to hand over a memorandum to representatives of SALGA.

Both marches will start at approximately 11:30, following the same route from Keizergracht, via Oswald Pirow and Hertzog Boulevard reaching the Civic Centre at approximately 13:00. Traffic Services will be on duty to direct traffic, but motorists are warned that congestion may occur and are advised to avoid the area.

The City will heighten its security measures at all municipal buildings across the city to prevent possible violent outbreaks that may put its staff and visitors in danger. As of Monday, all visitors to municipal buildings must please ensure that they have proof of an appointment with a staff member in the building, or their utility bill as reference to gain access to the building. There will be no thoroughfare through the Civic Centre. The City apologises for the inconvenience, but this is a necessary step to ensure the safety of all visitors and staff.

The principle of ‘no work no remuneration’ will apply to all municipal staff on strike. Residents are requested to please report any acts of violence or vandalism related to the strike as well as incidents of intimidation or harassment of employees not participating in the strike or members of the public to the Metro Police Control Centre on 021 596 1999.

As municipal services are going to be affected, contingency measures have been put in place to minimise the impact on service delivery.

Employees engaged in designated essential services, including City Health, Traffic Services, Metro Police, Law Enforcement Services, Fire and Emergency Services and the provision of water, electricity and sanitation may not participate in strike action.

The strike is expected to affect solid waste services as most of the Solid Waste Management Department staff are allowed to strike for a certain time period. Affected services include refuse removal in formal and informal areas, street sweeping, emptying of public bins and the removal of illegal dumping, as well as services to businesses and industries.

The City will endeavour to remove refuse on the scheduled refuse collection day, but this is dependent on the availability of resources and staff on that day. Should refuse not be collected by 21:00, residents are requested to please move their bins back inside their properties and put them out, together with any accumulation of bagged refuse, the following week on the scheduled day. In informal settlements, residents must please make use of the shipping containers placed throughout the area. The City will keep residents informed of the unfolding situation or amendments to this arrangement as required.

Residents are urged to assist the City during this time by not dumping waste and by not letting wet waste accumulate if not collected. The following drop-off sites will be open on Mondays to Saturdays from 08:30 to 17:00 and on Sundays from 09:00 to 14:00:

Atlantis -Dassenberg Road

Belhar -Adam Tas Road

De Grendel -Cnr 5th Ave and Bertie Genade St, Parow

Delft -Fabriek Street

Gordon’s Bay -Sir Lowry’s Pass Road

Hout Bay -Main Road, near Mandela Road

Killarney -Potsdam Road

Kommetjie -Kommetjie Road

Ladies Mile -Ladies Mile Road, Constantia

Macassar -Kramat Road

Ravensmead -Industrial Ring Road

Retreat -10th Avenue

Schaapkraal -Old Schaapkraal Road

Sea Point -Tramway Road

Simon’s Town -Blue Waters Close

Tygerdal -Orange Street

Welgelegen -Akademie Street

Wynberg -Rosmead Avenue

Woodstock -Beach Road

Drop-off facilities are also available at the following disposal facilities:

Athlone Transfer Station -Off Bunga Drive

Bellville South Landfill Site -Off Sacks Circle

Coastal Park Landfill Site -Off Baden Powell Drive

Kraaifontein Facility -Cnr Maroela and Sandringham Roads

Vissershok Landfill Site -Off Frankdale Road

For any queries regarding the drop-off facilities, residents can contact 021 442 8136.

For any other enquiries, residents can contact the City’s Call Centre on 0860 103 089.

The City apologises for any inconvenience during this difficult period and asks residents for their patience and cooperation to ensure that the city stays clean and safe in the weeks to come.

End

Issued by: Communication Department, City of Cape Town

CB MEDICS items needed for Base

2011-08-10T10:29:00.001+02:00

Dear Friends of the Medics

Below you will find our wish list of items we are sourcing to kit the BASE out. We aim to have the official launch in the first week of September so racing against the clock now. Secondhand items are most welcome and if you know of anyone who you could forward this to, we would be most appreciative. We have had bunk beds donated and am circulating our list now and ticking off as we receive responses.

Thanks for your support.

Kind Regards

Leigh Goldschmidt

Camps Bay Community Medics

PR and Fundraising

072 447 1600

leigh@cbcm.org.za

www.cbcm.org.za

PBO Reg.No.: 930 029 619

WISHLIST:

Dusta buster x 2

(one for RV)

Hand held vacuum

Cleaning materials

Bucket

Mop

Broom

Kettle

Microwave

Toaster

Snackwich toaster

Couch small (base room)

Coffee table small

Blinds venetian (base room)

Desk (downstairs)

Bar fridge

Kitchen cupboard unit small

Carpet tiles Builders Warehouse 4 boxes tiles

Flatscreen tv

DVD player

Music system mini speaker

Handbrush and dustpan

Hanging cutlery set

Glasses - tumblers

Long handle window squeezie cleaner

Linen

- pillows x 2

- blanket x 2

- fitted sheet x 4

- duvet inner 3/4 x 2

- duvet cover 3/4 x 2

Kettle

City prepare for possible SAMWU strike

2011-08-09T08:39:00.002+02:00

CITY OF CAPE TOWN

MEDIA RELEASE

08 AUGUST 2011

City preparing for possible SAMWU strike commencing soon

The City of Cape Town has been informed of possible national strike action by members of the South African Municipal Workers’ Union (SAMWU), starting on Monday 15 August. The City has already started putting the necessary contingency measures in place to minimise disruption in service delivery in the event that the strike goes ahead.

The strike has been called because of a deadlock in wage negotiations triggered by a conditional clause in the three year wage agreement. According to that clause, wage negotiations can be re-opened as the average CPI rate of 4.08% falls outside of the 5% to 10% range as specified in the three year agreement.

Disputes are centrally bargained nationally between the South African Local Government Association(SALGA) and labour representatives. The City of Cape Town is just one of the municipalities represented by SALGA at the bargaining table and therefore has limited input into negotiations.

This will be a national strike by all SAMWU members. SALGA is offering municipal employees an annual increase of 6,08%, whereas SAMWU demands 18%.

The strike is also about SAMWU’s protest against proposed amendments made to the Municipal Systems Act by National Government. The City will keep residents informed of progress made to resolve the strike at a national level and will soon be communicating its detailed contingency plans to ensure that service delivery continues despite the strike.

Unfortunately some services, such as solid waste, will be affected, but residents can be assured that the City will do all it can to ensure that all residents’ refuse is collected and that its refuse drop-off sites remain open.

Alderman Demetri Qually, Mayoral Committee Member for Corporate Services, said: “We recognise the rights of labour to negotiate under this clause, but we are gravely concerned by SAMWU’s 18% wage demand. If implemented this will have a catastrophic impact on the City’s wage bill and on our ability to deliver municipal services, as funding identified for service delivery would have to be diverted to wages.”

“While the City respects the rights of staff to strike, we will ensure that negative impacts on our core function, namely service delivery, are minimised. We have in the past managed to continue delivering services to our residents despite national strikes and we are confident our contingency plans will allow us to do the same now. We do however need our residents’ support and patience, and we thank them in advance for helping us during the upcoming strike,” Qually said.

End

Issued by: Communication Department, City of Cape Town

Media enquiries:

Alderman Demetri Qually, Mayoral Committee Member for Corporate Services, Tel: 021 400 1299 or Cell: 083 629 1326

Kylie Hatton, Manager: Media, Tel: 021 400 4684 or Cell: 082 874 4605

Shireen Maggott

Secretary to Marius Coetsee

Manager: Good Hope Sub Council 16

11th Floor - 44 Wale Street

Cape Town

Tel : (021) 487 2201

Fax: (021) 487 2208

e-mail: Shireen.Maggott@capetown.gov.za

"Sub-councils: Here to serve you well"

CBRRA Objection Erf 404 Sedgemoor Rd

2011-08-03T21:50:00.000+02:00

02 AUGUST 2011

The Director: Planning & Building Development Management (Cape Town Region )

City of Cape Town

Box 4529

Cape Town 8000

ATTN: Friedrich Durow

Dear Mr Durow

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTURE from the CAPE TOWN ZONING SCHEME

FILEREF LM 5602 (201718)

OWNER DUNCAN BARRATT

APPLICANT BMJ DESIGNS

ERF 404

LOCATION 21 SEDGEMOOR RD

SUBURB CAMPS BAY

The CBRRA objects to this application.

This application is for a permanent departure from the Zoning Scheme in order to regularize an existing garage. Unfortunately, the garage is not a stand-alone structure but incorporates a living unit as an integral part of a double storey building.

This raises two problems. viz:

The City is being requested to allow a habitable dwelling unit to be regularized closer than 4.5m to the street boundary, which is totally different to an application merely for a garage. Thus the advertisement is factually misleading and therefore void in terms of a raft of legislation.

The application kicks in a removal of restrictions requirement in terms of the Act, in that the offending structure cannot be described as merely a garage or outbuilding not exceeding 3.05m in height. This double storey existing structure must be set back 4.72m from the street boundary on Eldon Lane (or, in the alternative 3.15m), both which exceed the 1.734m advertised.

This renders this application fatally flawed and must be re-advertised in a factually correct manner and in terms of all relevant legislation.

CBRRA is prepared to facilitate discussions between the Applicant and Affected Parties in an attempt to broker an acceptable solution, if the parties so wish.

CBRRA requests an interview at the appropriate Sub-council / SPELUM meeting that will convene to consider this application.

Regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE

CHAIRPERSON

CBRRA

contact:

Chris Willemse

cnwillemse@gmail.com

Mobile 083 6536363

Fax 021-4380703

CBRRA AGM 15 Aug '11

2011-08-01T11:03:00.013+02:00

AGENDA

(Please click on the item for more details)

Welcome

Chair: Chris Willemse

A Fragile Village: Michele Harvey (Vice)

Councillor Beverley Schafer

Wayne Aldridge: Vagrancy

Energy Savings Campaign:Lisa Parkes

Councillor Marga Haywood

Census: Juliet Lerm

Membership: Gus Millner

Dogwalking: Trudi Groenewald

Finance: John Powell

Planning: Chris Willemse

Questions from the Floor

Election of new committee members

Closure

CBRRA Financials 2009

2011-07-19T09:25:00.003+02:00

These 2009 financials have been signed off by Manco and the auditors.

Click on each image to enlarge.

Electricity Saving Campaign

2011-06-04T10:02:00.003+02:00

Dear various Association representatives along the Atlantic Sea Board

I am writing to you on behalf of the City of Cape Town

As you may know already…

There is a serious national electricity supply shortage and we need to do everything we can to avoid power cuts again.

The price of electricity is rising steeply.

South Africa’s electricity is currently mostly produced by coal-fired power stations, which does a lot of harm to our environment, and contributes to climate change threats.

The City of Cape Town is calling on all Capetonians to reduce their electricity consumption. The City has researched easy and cost-effective actions people can take at home, and is making this information available through an electricity saving campaign. For smart ideas on ways to save money, and help save our environment, visit: www.savingelectricity.org.za .

This website provides help for taking action, including ‘Top 10 Tips’, a guide on where to find energy efficient products, and other useful tools and resources.

We are writing to you to ask for your help. Please could you:

Share information with your network of members/ residents/ constituents/ stakeholders. Please see the attached items to add to your next newsletter (if you have one), or to share in other ways.

Presentation and/or campaign materials. Let us know if there’s any opportunity to come and give a short presentation to a meeting of your members, and/or if you’d be prepared to put up a poster in a ‘high-traffic; area (e.g. an entrance foyer, or a lift) or hand out some campaign materials. We also have an interactive info kiosk which could be set up at bigger events too.

It would be great if you could accommodate this request for a presentation or information sharing, preferably to happen before 10th July 2011.

Many thanks, and we look forward to hearing back from you.

Please note that icologie have been appointed by the City of Cape Town as the service provider to roll-out this Electricity Saving Camapaign.

All the best (on behalf of the City of Cape)

Steven Marks

Cell +27 79 550 2987

Tel +27 21 439 3898

Fax +27 86 689 7464

www.icologie.com

steven.marks@icologie.com

Which Ward am I in?

2011-05-17T05:56:00.003+02:00

The Demarcation Board has divided the City of Cape Town into geographic areas called wards to effectively manage service delivery. Wards are in turn represented by elected ward councillors, who interact with ward forums and the City as a way of bringing their respective community's concerns to Council's attention. Each ward councillor is also a member of a subcouncil and a member of a portfolio committee. There are 105 wards in Cape Town, with between 13 000 and 15 000 voters each. There are usually between three and seven neighbouring wards in a subcouncil.

Camps Bay falls in Sub Council 16 as indicated below:

SUB COUNCIL 16

Wards included: Ward 54, Ward 74, Ward 77

Contact details

Tel: 021 487 2055

Fax: 021 487 2208

Address:

Good Hope Subcouncil

11th Floor

44 Wale Street

Cape Town

8001

E-mail: subcouncil16.goodhope@capetown.gov.za

Chairperson:

Demetri (Taki) Amira

Manager:

Marius Coetsee

Ward Councillors:

Alderman Jean-Pierre Smith (Ward 54)

Marga Haywood (Ward 74)

Vivienne Margaret Walker (Ward 77)

PR Councillors:

Mluleki Enoch Mbonde

Mawonga Labase

Demetri Amira

CAMPS BAY is split into two Wards, namely Ward 54 and Ward 74.

The split runs along the following road from the ocean:

From Victoria next to the Camps Bay Club following

The Mead,

left into Central,

right into Tree

left into Geneva

right into Woodford

left into Cramond,

right between Erf 22 and 4,

across Medburn,

across between Erf 21 and 23,

left into Camps Bay Drive, to the neck.

All residents on the Sea Point side of this split is included in Ward 54 and all residents on the Hout Bay side of this split is included in Ward 74.

Voting District View Finder

2011-05-17T05:47:00.002+02:00

For more information on your voting district, please visit the Election Committee website at http://maps.elections.org.za/vsfinder/ where the boundaries are clearly allocated.

Final Party and Ward Candidate lists drawn up

2011-05-17T05:31:00.000+02:00

Final party and ward candidate lists for the 2011 elections

12/04/2011

The Electoral Commission (IEC) announced today that the candidate lists for the municipal elections on 18 May 2011 have been finalised. This is the outcome of the nomination process where political parties and independent candidates -

• Submitted their nominations before 17:00 on 25 March

• Were advised by the Electoral Commission (IEC) of shortcomings where identity documents were not submitted or where acceptance of nomination forms by candidates were still outstanding; and

• had until 17:00 on 8 April to rectify these shortcomings

The Chief Electoral Officer, Adv Pansy Tlakula, said that the nomination process have been complicated to some extent by some intra-party disputes which resulted in a number of last minute court applications with the last judgement only being passed within the last hour before the closure of nominations.

There are 121 parties that will be contesting the elections as opposed to 97 parties in 2006 and 79 in 2001. The number of candidates is 53596 compared to 45179 in 2006 and 30477 in 2001. Of the 53596 candidates 29570 are party ward candidates and 23278 are party proportional list candidates. The number of independent ward candidates also increased from 667 in 2006 to 748 in 2011. The increases in nominations are an indication of a broadening in electoral participation at local level and is very encouraging as for as the entrenchment of democratic processes are concerned.

There are only two (2) wards country wide, namely one each in the Great Kei (Komga) and Lukhanji (Queenstown) municipalities that are uncontested, whilst 11 wards were uncontested in 2006.

“There is a slight improvement in the gender distribution of candidates with the percentage of women candidates having increased from 35% in 2006 to 37% in 2011. This remains a disappointing outcome,” said Adv Tlakula.

There are unfortunately a larger number of nominations which did not meet requirements on this occasion than in 2006 when 932 candidates were disqualified. The number of nominations that did not meet the set legal requirements is 2313 for one or more of the following reasons:

• Not registered as voters

• Not registered in the municipality for which nominated

• Copy of ID not submitted

• Acceptance of nomination not submitted

• Independent – list of signatures not submitted

• Independent – Nominators not a registered voter

• Independent – Nominator not on the voters roll for the municipality for which nomination is made

• Deposit not paid

Apart from these non-compliance issues a number of nominations were not accepted as it was attempted to submit them after the close of nominations or they were presented at a location other than the municipality which was being contested. Some of these cases are the matter of court applications and appeals and whilst the list of candidates have already been published it is therefore possible that once matters have been finally resolved amendment notices might have to be issued.

Only one party, the African National Congress, will be contesting all 278 municipal elections. The Democratic Alliance will be contesting 272 municipalities and the Congress of the People 220. The ward ballot papers with the most candidates are wards 24 (Bishop Lavis) and 79 (Beacon Value / Eastridge) in Cape Town with 24 candidates each. The party proportional list ballot paper in Cape Town with 32 parties is also the ballot paper with the most contesting parties.

The order of parties on the proportional list ballot papers will be determined on 13 April at an occasion where political parties well also sign a pledge to honour and promote the Code of Conduct for political parties. Printer proofs of ballot papers will shortly thereafter be submitted to municipal party liaison committee’s for sign off by ward candidates and political parties. With the elections only 37 days away it is a mammoth logistical undertaking to print the ballot papers for the 4275 contested wards and the 460 proportional ballot papers for local and district councils.

The next milestone on the election timetable will be Friday 15 April 2011 when voters can start submitting applications for special votes because they either cannot visit their voting stations on voting day or are infirm or disabled. The IEC will shortly make full details available as far as the subject is concerned.

Full details of candidate lists will be published on the IEC website shortly as well as in the Government Gazette.

ISSUED BY THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Pretoria

12 April 2011

For media interviews: Please email requests to

spokesperson@elections.org.za

For media enquiries, please contact Kate Bapela on 082 600 6386.

The Value of the Vote

2011-05-17T05:29:00.001+02:00

The ratepayers of Cape Town are once again being asked to vote a City Government into power on 18th May 2011. The Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance, comprising over 100 civil society organisations active within the City of Cape Town, wishes to impress upon our citizens the value of their vote. It is probably one of the most precious possessions held by any citizen. We say, it is not to be taken lightly; it is not to be squandered easily and it should not be lent to those seeking office without serious thought about the value and impact of your vote.

The GCTCA believes that the local government elections should be about putting people in power who can ensure a safe, well developed, liveable environments for us to live in. We believe that the elections should be about putting in place a city government that will ensure that all citizens will be able to look proudly upon a city that is a home for all, where rich and poor can live in harmony, where resources are shared equitably and the where sustainable communities are built. We believe that this election should also be about clean air and respect for our cultural and environmental heritage.

It is not about power, but about people. It is about clean streets, proper street lighting, adequate storm water and sewerage systems and affordable property rates.

We call on Capetonians in the City of Cape Town to use their vote sensibly. We urge people to consider the issues that affect our daily lives and vote accordingly. We urge people to look past the badge and the election rigmarole and consider carefully the person whom you wish to represent you. Your vote is precious, use it wisely.

PHILIP M BAM, VICE CHAIRPERSON: GCTCA

(Extract from the insert "The Value of the Vote" by Philip Bam on the GCTCA Website http://gctca.org.za/the-value-of-the-vote)

CBRRA Financials 2010

2011-05-17T05:18:00.009+02:00

These 2010 financials have been signed off by Manco and submitted to the auditors for final approval.

Click on each image to enlarge or click ‹‹here›› to download a PDF of the financials.

Minutes of Public Meeting 7 March 2011

2011-05-17T04:57:00.000+02:00

CBRRA MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING

held on 7 March 2011 19h00 at The Rotunda, The Bay Hotel, Camps Bay

1. ATTENDANCE

PRESENT: Chris Willemse, Johan van Papendorp, Gus Millner, Sandy van Hoogstraten, Alma Horn, Brenda Herbert, Trudi Groenewald, John Powell, Michele Harvey, Chrissie Phillips

2. APOLOGIES

Colin Harvey

3. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

3.1

The Chair welcomed everyone and extended a special welcome to Ward councillor Marga Haywood, Taylor Jackson, the head prefect of Camps Bay High School and his delegation of prefects, Arthur Shepherd, Bernard Shafer and Simon Kneel of the civic security cluster. Thanks were also extended to Maree Brink, Johannes Lategan and Hester of the Bay Hotel for their hospitality.

3.2

The Chair extended best wishes to Val Cleland for a speedy recovery from illness. Val has been a tower of strength to MANCO over the years that she served on the committee.

3.3

The Chair's report would deal with the new members on MANCO. CBRRA will strive to provide a new vision and proposed synergy with school and sporting bodies.

3.4

The Chair's report would also deal with the fall-out from the Harrison case, in which the CBRRA was unsuccessful.

4. SPEAKER Sandy van Hoogstraten: Camps Bay Goes Clean

4.1

Sandy’s presentation to be attached

5. SPEAKER Taylor Jackson: Head Prefect Camps Bay High School re involvement in CB Goes Clean

5.1

Taylor introduced himself and prefects

5.2

Taylor said the school would run an environmental awareness campaign with Sandy van Hoogstraten of CBRRA.

5.3

They would educate the community on recycling , have guest speakers for talks, launch a green committee and sell 'green genies' at a reduced price

5.4

Two green genies were raffled. Winners: John Powell and Matthew Bater

6. SPEAKER Bernard Schafer: Proposed fencing of Little Glen

6.1

Bernard introduced himself on behalf of the 'fix-up project' initiated by the community surrounding the Little Glen.

6.2

Bernard spoke about the cluster of security bodies, these being: Camps Bay Watch, CBCPF and the CBCSI and the fix up projects started by the community surrounding the Glen. He said that fencing the Glen conjures thoughts of elitism but the ecological problems, litter, illegal dumping, security and 'out of sight, out of mind' necessitated monitoring. Builders are dumping and conning the community into taking rubbish for them and putting it into the Glen. Criminals are also using the Glen as an escape route, it is all too easy to get into and out of properties in this area. Managing and monitoring will not restrict access to residents but make it safer, particularly at night. Fences will initially have a 1.2 m opening and later be gated. Keys will be available to residents and gates will only be locked at night. Botanical experts have been involved to prevent damage to green areas and making the fences aesthetically pleasing.

6.3

Questions from the floor:

Colin Carter noted his concern that he didn't want to find gates locked and private people managing them. Dawn and dusk monitoring - who's responsible? Residents don't want to feel they are living in an enclosed area and

wanted to be assured that it would be environmentally friendly. Resident also don't want to see a slow erosion of access points being closed off.

Bernard’s response:

Bernard agreed with the sentiments expressed by Colin. Fencing (Beta type) to blend in with vegetation (same colours and lasting for 30 years with low maintenance). Fencing will be below road level where possible. There are no immediate plans for gates to go on openings to little Glen and in time will only be at night. Residents wishing to walk in 'dead of night' would have a key. It would be preferable to have monitoring.

Colin Carter’s response:

Part of the problem is that papers print conflicting reports which doesn't help in clarification.

Sandy van Hoogstraten’s response:

Sandy suggested planting thorny roses and also to fix and clear steps making walking more easy.

7. CHAIRPERSON’s REPORT: Chris Willemse

7.1

The Chair introduced the new members, Michele Harvey, Colin Harvey, Sandy van Hoogstraten and Gus Millner. Their qualities and their roles were commented upon and they were wished every success for their time on Manco. He also noted that Jane Bodin had left the committee and thanked her for her contribution in taking the minutes.

8. SPEAKER: COUNCILLOR Marga Haywood

8.1

Margo welcomed everybody and said she would go through the main problem issues as follows:-

8.2

The first issue was the rates and taxes, particularly how the city has done the valuations. This is still not resolved. The poor areas will be subsided by the ratepayers as decided by parliament and the constitution. The intention that 60% of the rates should be spent where the rates are paid is being investigated. The point was made that the "local area" means the ward and not the City.

It is accepted by the City of Cape Town that allocations such as fire fighting, etc are part of the budget for Camps Bay but there's lots of space to manoeuver a substantial spend on the area.

8.3

Electricity has almost doubled. The main reason for this is that National Government did not invest when they should have done.

8.4

Negatives:

Vagrants and anti social behaviour and littering
Neighbours: Views and privacy
Events and noise pollution
Dog walking, horse riding (Hout Bay)

Positives:

More local input into the prioritising of budget expenditure.
The redevelopment of Camps Bay beach had been approved years ago but had fallen by the wayside. It had now been recommended to the full council.

The budget was the biggest capital item prioritised.
Repairs to steps at Maidons Cove.
Received request for R900,000 for the national park including irrigation systems and plants.
Road and storm water infrastructure along Victoria Road had seen some repairs
Waste removal
There were two big fires on Victoria Drive and the success in the fire fighting had very positive feedback

8.5

She will go as a committed representative with John Powell and Chris Willemse to see the deputy mayor regarding the court action costs

8.6

In the new demarcation process, the Hout Bay ward has lost 1500 voters to Sea Point. She stressed the point that if you want control on how your money is spent then you must vote.

9. FINANCE – John Powell

9.1 John to attach report

10. PLANNING – Chris Willemse

10.1 Chris to attach report

11. QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

1.1

Question 1 (Michael Williams): What is the final financial implication of the legal fees owed?

Response (Chris Willemse): R75,000. If the city prosecute their cost order, then it will be substantial.

Question 2 (Bernard Schafer, to Marga Haywood):

Residents are complaining of electricity readings being 5-6 times above normal and sometimes 100's and thousands of rands more. Surely pre-paid customers should have a discount as there is less administration, etc.
Cleaning and removal of rubbish is a massive problem on the verges, sides of the roads in Camps Bay and Clifton. Residents' sponsored clean-ups result in the removal of at least 10 truckloads a month. What can we do?
The beach verge needs to be clear for emergency and life guard services. Vehicles constantly damage the grass and pole barriers. They need 3 registered areas left, right and centre of Camps Bay for these vehicles.
Need feedback for special liquor licenses for guest houses. Specific categories should have licenses
Bakoven has a severe sewerage crisis. Needs meeting with departments regarding raw sewerage getting onto Bakoven beaches.

Response (Chris Willemse): Will report back as most matters are currently being addressed.

Question 3 (Jane Bodin): Jane Bodin read a prepared statement admonishing the commitee for not always following the exact letter of the CBRRA constitution. She also wished the new members well.

Question 4 (from the floor): What are Manco's thoughts on Jane's statement?

Response (Chris Willemse): Jane had submitted a lengthy document to Manco regarding governance, most of which was based on incorrect perceptions on her part. Clearly, there is no suggestion of impropriety and minor procedural issues are bound to occur in an overworked voluntary organisation. In reality, Jane's problems were related to personality differences with the committee.

The chair thanked everyone for attending.

Meeting closed at 21h00.

Minutes AGM 19 August 2010

2011-05-17T04:51:00.002+02:00

CAMPS BAY RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

MINUTES OF THE CBRRA ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD AT THE ROTUNDA BALLROOM, CAMPS BAY AT 7-30 PM ON 19 AUGUST 2010

1. Welcome and apologies

Chairperson Charles Wells welcomed all to the meeting and thanked the Rotunda hotel for its kind hospitality.

Apologies : Jane Bodin

Present : 75 persons per the attendance record.

2. Chairperson’s report

Chairperson Charles Wells covered the following items :

Commended and thanked the Management committee for its continuous efforts and commitment which involved many hours of hard work. Sincere thanks are especially due to Dimitri Karakondis for all his hard work while on the CBRRA Manco

He asked that more residents become involved in CBRRA affairs on an active basis - the committee urgently needs new members and for R 200 pa, CBRRA distributes a wide range of advice

Activities during the last year included :

Removing illegal changerooms from the beachfront

Assisting ratepayers to reduce their accounts

Removing signage

Cleaning up The Glen, The Little Glen and public spaces – thanks also to residents who were active in this respect

Dogwalking hours on the beach survey and recommendation of revised hours

Co-ordinated beach events

Alerted the Council and buyers to the historic worth of the stone cottages on Geneva Drive

Prompted the Council to donate trees for planting in Camps Bay

Assisted schools in their efforts to renew their sportsfields leases

Supported Camps bay medics including donations

Representation on the Camps Bay Community Poilce Forum and Liquor Licensing committee.

Registered as a non-Profit Organisation

Cutting road verges aat the right time if the year

Upgraded CBRRA’s ITconbtacts, including the blog (± 7000hits in its first year), the website, Twitter and Facebook

Membership (at 25% of the amount of families) could be much better

and members are requested urgently to pay their subscriptions – only three quarters of the registered membership have paid their 2010 subscriptions and we are rebilling the non-payers shortly

Please encourage your friends and neighbours to join CBRRA

Bernard Schafer of the CBCSI reported on the establishment of the newly-founded Social Workers project with a donation of R 40 000 from Blues Restaurant - the aim of which is to look at and tackle the vagrancy problem in Camps Bay. He also referred to the newly reformed Camps Bay Business Forum.

3. Approval of 2009 AGM minutes

Proposed by John Powell, seconded by Alma Horn - carried unanimously. Matters arising were dealt with within the following items.

4. Election of Manco members for 2010 11

The existing Manco committee was re-elected en bloc plus new member Michele Harvey

5. Speaker on Cape Town Tourism

Mariette du Toit spoke on the manner in which Cape Town Tourism had dealt with and learned from the whole FIFA World Cup experience, which had been a very successful project for CTT.

6. Camps Bay Community Medics

Leigh Goldschmidt of CBCM outlined their current activities and capabilities and thanked CBRRA and residents for their ongoing support. CBCM is still looking for a permanent base in this area from which to operate.

7. Financial report

The audited financial report has not been finalized and will be presented at the next CBRRA public meeting

Cash in hand in December was R 4864,00 and at present is ±R 23 000,00 after further income and payments. The outstanding loan to

three lenders is R 77 500,00 after recent further repayments

±R 40 000,00 of subscriptions remain unpaid

8. Cllr. Marga Haywood

Cllr. Haywood emphasized that the first port of call for complaints and enquiries in respect of the Council was the Council officials, not her – she being our political representative to whom officials reported.

Matters of policy should currently be forwarded to her and Cllrs. Smith and Amira.

The new Ward boundary after next year’s municipal election between Camps Bay and Sea Point will be from Victoria Road up Geneva Drive / Camps Bay Drive to Kloof Nek.

This means that Camps Bay will be served by two Councillors in future

The public now has input on the manner in which the City spends its budget

Cllr. Haywood has inserted the upgrading of the main Camps Bay beachfront and the proposed Fulham Road bypass onto the City’s long

term budget

9. Rates

John Powell referred members to his article in the Atlantic Sun in respect of their current dealings with the City Valuations Department.

Transfer fees for properties sold after the valuation date but which had not had the valuation finally agreed after an objection would be based on the new valuation and not on the requested lower value if an objection had been lodged but not finalized..

If an objection has not been finalized, do not pay the rates amount newly billed but negotiate with the Valuation Department to pay the old rates bill plus say 10% until the objection has been finalised.

10. Energy

Roger Trythall and Wouter Roggen presented an illustrated talk on ensuring energy security, resource conservation and environmental resource managemnt.

11. Dogwalking Survey feedback

The following proposal was put on the CBRRA blog for residents and the public to respond to :

CBRRA’s proposal is:

ITEM 1: DOGWALKING ON THE MAIN CAMPS BAY BEACH:

SUMMER: 01 November to 30 April

a. Dogs only on leashes - 6 pm to 5 am

b. Dogs not on leashes - 5 am to 9 am

c. No dogs allowed on beach - 9 am to 6 pm.

WINTER: 01 May to 31 October

d. Dogs only on leashes – 3 pm to 6 am

e. Dogs not on leashes - 6 am to 11 am

f. No dogs allowed on beach - 11 am to 3 pm

As a further initiative we wish to gauge your reaction to the following proposal:

ITEM 2: DOGWALKING IN THE GLEN:

All areas except The Glen picnic area:

a. OFF LEASH: ALL HOURS

The Glen picnic area:

b. ON LEASH: Saturday & Sunday 12h00 to sunset.

c. OFF LEASH: All hours except the abovementioned.

There was a gratifying 83% support response to the above proposals and it was accepted at this meeting by those present.

Trudi Groenewald and John Powell are to submit this to the Ward Forum to take matters further.

12. Planning

Chris Willemse reported and first thanked Charles Wells on behalf of CBRRA and its members and the public for his great leadership and contribution this last year as Chairperson of CBRRA.

Departure etc planning applications are currently at about three per month as compared with four a week three years ago.

There have been eight legal agreements this year organized by CBRRA between it, applicants and affected neighbours in respect of planning applications.

“The Crystal” development remains a serious problem – now having been declared complete and inhabitable by occupants in spite of still, in CBRRA’s opinion, being illegal.

At a recent meeting with Cllr Nieuwoudt, Piet van Zyl and Ossie Gonsalves, Cllr Nieuwoudt has promised CBRRA a Declarator on this matter.

The Concourt judgement in the Harrison case appeal is still awaited.

13. Any other matters and questions from the floor.

None

14. Date of next meeting.

Still to be decided and announced.

15. The meeting ended at 9-45 pm

Val Cleland passes away

2011-04-22T12:30:00.000+02:00

It is with great sadness that I must inform you that Val Cleland passed away this morning.

All who knew Val will remember her fondly, and those who served with her will certainly never forget her immense passion for the community service to which she generously dedicated so much of her time.

CBRRA's sincere condolences goes to Doug, Kathy and Nicky.

Chris Willemse

CBRRA Chair

Public Meeting Announcement 7 March 2010

2011-02-27T07:24:00.000+02:00

PUBLIC MEETING

Mon 7 March March 2011 @ 19h00

The Rotunda, Camps Bay

ALL WELCOME

FEEDBACK ON
• Camps Bay Goes Green (Address by Sandy van Hoogstraten)
• CBRRA portfolio reports on issues relating to Camps Bay residents
• Meet our new team
• Address by Cllr Marga Haywood
• Supreme Court Ruling

Press Release: Concourt ruling in Harrison Matter

2010-11-07T08:23:00.000+02:00

The CBRRA is disappointed that the Constitutional Court has dismissed its appeal against the Supreme Court of Appeal judgement in this matter.

The SCA had found, as a matter of fact, that the plans approved by the City of Cape Town did not comply with the Zoning Scheme on at least one critical point. But this Court ruled that this contravention was raised in reply rather than in founding papers and would not condone the point, making it a legal technical decision. However, given the real situation on the ground, where the City have, according to the SCA, incorrectly approved plans, the CBRRA and its co-applicant continue to feel justified in bringing this action, both in the public interest and the promotion of proper City governance.

CBRRA stresses that the contention by the Courts, that this is merely a dispute between neighbours, is not the situation – CBRRA embarked on this course of action because it believed that the approval of the plans contravened both Zoning Scheme regulations and Title Deed restrictions and that the application was in the general public interest.

Of course, the Constitutional Court is clearly the end of the line legally and the CBRRA must, and will, abide by its decision.

CBRRA has long fought, what it considers, the City Planning Department’s inequitable planning approval process. To date, the CBRRA has successfully challenged the City planners’ approval process in 7 cases.

Excluding the technical legal point in this case, that might have been eight. This is CBRRA’s first unsuccessful application.

CBRRA will continue to fight against the City’s frequently incorrect and inconsistent planning approval process. The number of other cases brought successfully against the City in other suburbs suggests that civic action of this nature is both necessary and in the general interest of the ratepayers of Cape Town.

CHRIS WILLEMSE
CHAIR : CBRRA

-------------------------------------------------------------------

7 November 2010

Letter to the Atlantic Sun

The Courts seemed very pre-occupied with the idea that this was a fight between neighbours and generally seemed to disregard CBRRA's contention that planning laws were being contravened and due process not followed.

In fact, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the High Court had erred in not ruling that the building did not comply with the Zoning Scheme in one very important aspect, but then refused to find it a ground for review because it ruled that the objection had been raised at too late a stage. This is devastating for CBRRA because it means that the plans shouldn't have been approved in the first place but now, due to legal technicalities, an illegal buiilding will be allowed to be built.

CBRRA was always confident of their case and rightfully so, given the SCA decision. CBRRA didn't expect that the failure of the City planning department to properly approve the plans would be less important than the belief that we took sides in a petty fight between two neighbours.

Certainly, nobody makes money out of losing court battles but most of the application has been funded to date by CBRRA's so-called "war-chest" and various benefactors who contributed funds specifically for this purpose. CBRRA will consider the remaining costs as they arise out of the taxing bill and deal with it accordingly.

The CBRRA remains totally committed to its mandate to serve and protect the community and suburbs of Camps Bay, Clifton and Bakoven without fear or favour. There is no plan to disband and/or reconstitute the Association and I am personally confident that we enjoy the support of the majority of residents and ratepayers of this community. The incredible amount of work that the Manco of the CBRRA do on a voluntary basis is appreciated.

The 7 cases that CBRRA have successfully prosecuted against the City planners has had a major effect on the built environment of the suburb and, in fact, the City as a whole. CBRRA cases are quoted as case law in so many instances throughout the country.

Clearly, that was money well spent. That CBRRA lost this case on legal technicalities is a bitter pill to swallow but must not daunt us from continuing to strive for a City planning department that is fair and equitable and doesn't destroy the very fabric of our community. Essentially, the elected officials have to intervene in this matter as it is ultimately their mandate to ensure good governance in the City.

CBRRA is currently involved as a co-applicant in three matters before the High Court. In all three, temporary interdicts have already been granted against the respondents pending final review of the plans.

Anthony "Buddy' Herman can be reached on 021 4191450 (work).

CHRIS WILLEMSE

CHAIR : CBRRA

-------------------------------------------------------------------

10 November 2010

The Editor

Cape Times

Dear Sir

The Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA) deems it necessary to respond to your article on the Camps Bay house “sea view” saga (Cape Times Nov 5th), to both contextualise the matter and better inform the ratepayers and residents of this City.

The CBRRA is disappointed that the Constitutional Court dismissed its appeal against the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgement in this matter.

However, the SCA had found, as a matter of fact, that the plans approved by the City of Cape Town did not comply with the Zoning Scheme on at least one critical point. But the SCA ruled that this contravention was raised in replying- rather than in founding papers and would not condone the alleged delay, making it a legal technical decision. However, given the real situation on the ground, where the City have, according to the SCA, incorrectly approved plans, the CBRRA and its co-applicant continue to feel justified in bringing this action, both in the public interest and the promotion of proper City governance.

The issue of “a fight between neighbours over a view” merely serves to trivialise a real problem facing all property owners in this City: The inability, or unwillingness, of the City’s planning department to properly and correctly assess planning applications. The recent High Court ruling in the Bantry Bay case and numerous problem cases in Camps Bay serve to underline this point. However, the WC High Court, in this matter, rejected the case made by the CBRRA regarding important issues pertaining to the interpretation and execution of planning law. CBRRA feels that this was an opportunity lost to clarify some very vague and contradictory planning laws. Given the SCA’s ruling though, it is quite clear that an illegal structure has been condoned.

CBRRA embarked on this course of action because it believed that the approval of the plans contravened both Zoning Scheme regulations and Title Deed restrictions and that this legal application was in the general public interest. The City, instead of not opposing the application and agreeing to abide by the ruling of the Court, as it normally does, took the unprecedented step of entering a legal battle against ratepayers - using ratepayers’ money. This is extremely concerning. The fact that its planning department had it wrong in the first place is particularly galling to those citizens who have devoted an enormous amount of time and money to the case – and the cause.

CBRRA has long fought, what it considers, the City Planning Department’s inequitable planning approval process. The CBRRA has successfully challenged the City planners’ approval process in all 7 cases brought to date. Excluding the technical legal point in this case, that might have been eight.

CHRIS WILLEMSE

CHAIR : CBRRA

New ManCo 2010-2011

2010-09-20T09:23:00.003+02:00

At the Manco meeting held on 13 September at the Bay Hotel in Camps Bay, a new chair, two vice chairs and the following portfolios heads were selected for the year 2010-2011. CBRRA wants to thank these members for their efforts, time and passion that is so generously offered to the community. There is a desperate need for a new Minutes Secretary and a Membership Portfolio head. If anyone is interested in these positions, please contact John Powell on 27 21 438 8287 urgently.

CHAIR

Chair Planning / City Council Liaison

Chris Willemse

27 83 653 6363

cnwillemse @ gmail.com

VICE CHAIR / SPOKESPERSON

Finance / PR & Communications / Planning / GCTCA Liaison / Rates Liaison / Sub Council Liaison

John Powell

27 82 556 3086 / 27 21 438 8287

powelltalk @ icon.co.za

VICE CHAIR

Special Projects / Environment

Michele Harvey

27 21 422 4706

michele @ tictac.co.za

Special Projects / Environment

Sandy van Hoogstraten

27 84 500 0886

sandy @ palmtreehouse.co.za

Planning and Cleansing

Trudi Groenewald

27 82 452 3776

groensee @ new.co.za

Planning / Events & Signage Liaison / Safety & Security Liaison

Brenda Herbert

083 626 1731

brenda @ herbert.co.za

PR & Communication

Alma Horn

083 628 9105

almahorn @ gmail.co.za

Hon Treasurer

Mary Lloyd

021 438 8712

hooba @ iafrica.com

Planning and Environment

Johan van Papendorp

082 420 2922

jvp @ ovp.co.za

Membership

Gus Millner

gus.millner @ campsbaywatch.org

Minutes Secretary

Chrissie Phillips

Atlantic Sun 9 Sep '10 - Reply to Ms Cheryl Walters

2010-09-12T13:43:00.000+02:00

Re: The letter from Ms Cheryl Walters ("City will not ignore illegal building works", Atlantic Sun August 26).

Ms Walters, the Director for Planning and Building Development Management for the City, takes your readers through the rather tortuous manner in which illegal building operations have to be dealt with by the City, in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance and their own operational methods. One must wonder why no improvement to this system has been made to date but, until such time as the largest City in the Province actually does so, its citizens must accept the law as it stands.

However, Ms Walters ignores the real problem that all ratepayer groups complain of in this regard: The City almost systematically fails to curb illegal building work and then when such work is brought to their attention by the community, the Planning Department (PD) invariably support whatever departures and consents that are required to retrospectively legitimise the building.

The well-publicised Bantry Bay development on Beach Road is just such a case, This development, despite having deviated substantially from the original, approved plans and having attracted cease work orders, had its "rider" plans supported for approval by the PD to the Good Hope Subcouncil ! Thankfully, the committee of Cllr Taki Amira stood firm and rejected the application. CBRRA is greatly encouraged by the brave stand taken by the politicians.

The Crystal block in Woodford Ave, Camps Bay tells a similar tale. The developer deliberately deviated from the levels of the basement depicted on the approved plans.When CBRRA complained of this, the City requested amended plans but allowed the building work to the upper floors to continue, contending that these floors were as per the approved plans. However they couldn't explain how those floors would stand up if the basement was rejected.
Of course, the City had no intention of rejecting the amended basement plans and even though, in the end, it did take a year of fiddling with the plans (ie working without plans), the "rider" plans were passed - irregularly in the opinion of the CBRRA and its legal team. The only ray of hope emanating from this flagrant disregard for the community, is that the Mayor and Speaker of the City are considering the appointment of an independent investigation into the approval process. This follows strong representations from CBRRA. However, it is small comfort for those who live in the shadow of this massive block which is now being occupied by new owners and tenants.

It would be wise for Ms Walters to accept that developers "know" the system and simply build themselves into so-called "impregnable" positions - where it is easier for the City to retrospectively approve plans rather than face possible legal action from a developer who will claim that it should not be prejudiced, at a later stage, when that the City allowed the contraventions in the first place.

Ms Walters must resolve this problem urgently to regain any modicum of community confidence in her department.

Chris Willemse
Chair : CBRRA Planning

Atlantic Sun 9 Sep '10 - Tree planting

2010-09-12T13:19:00.000+02:00

CBRRA asks you to come and plant a tree!

2010-08-28T13:42:00.000+02:00

The Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA) invites you to join it at its tree planting ceremony at 11-00 am on Saturday 4 September 2010 in The Little Glen in Camps Bay for about 30 minutes.

Come and join us in celebrating the arrival of Spring, by planting a tree so that we can give thanks to mother nature for supplying us with the means to clean our air and green our environment.

This will be a special day, when Council Officials and Councillors will grace us with their presence to illustrate their commitment to our beautiful environment.

The Police, those involved in the safety and security of Camps Bay and people representing the community at large, be it representatives from the Scouts, Camps Bay schools, Churches and especially Friends of The Little Glen will be joining us to also show their support and appreciation of this important occasion generated by Richard Dames of CBRRA.

CBRRA looks forward to seeing you there and hopes that this will be the forerunner of similar annual tree planting initiatives in the future.

CBRRA sincerely thanks the Camps Bay residents who donated the necessary funds to pay the Council labour which will be necessary on the day. Should you wish to similarly donate a tree, CBBRA will be most grateful.

See you there !

Atlantic Sun - The Crystal 5 August 2010

2010-08-28T13:26:00.000+02:00

Reply letter (see Thomas Geh letter below)

It is a fact of life that when an organisation or individual stands up for the rights of the people, certain disaffected individuals will attempt to vilify their public spirited efforts. South Africa has a long, often sad, legacy of this.

Mr Geh has been running a long standing personal vendetta against the CBRRA, in general, and me in particular, to which the many residents of Camps Bay who have received his unsolicited defamatory e-mails will attest.

Indeed, Geh served for a long period on the CBRRA Manco - but was required to leave the planning portfolio many years ago due to the conflicts of interest that frequently arose with his own projects.

However, CBRRA is not interested in being drawn down into his mudslinging match and responds to his comments as follows:

The CBRRA certainly supports sensible, sensitive and sustainable development. This is policy. The fact that it has brokered over 100 agreements between Applicants and Affected Neighbours for new development, bears testimony to this. There is not another ratepayer organisation that is so pro-active.

The Cape Town Stadium in Green Point falls outside the sphere of influence of CBRRA. Whether the billions spent on this magnificent stadium and precinct can be justified, will remain a moot point.

The fact that Troben Heights was in a poor condition does not, in any way, condone the illegal structure that the City has now allowed to be built on the site. A well designed, legal building would have been just fine.

Geh is wrong when he claims that this large building complies with the Zoning Scheme and title deed restrictions.

It is a complete non sequitur that developers will not develop legal structures that the community accepts. But they will push the envelope for financial gain if possible - and it is the ratepayer organisations throughout the City that must guard against this. The City do not, in our experience, protect community rights.

As an example, the CBRRA made it a condition of approval that the roof of the Geh-designed block at the top of Geneva Drive be lower than the adjoining sidewalk on Camps Bay Drive at any point. Without CBRRA intervention, the exquisite viewline from the Camps Bay Drive would have been broken. However, a developer has been prepared to accept the requirements of the community and the completed building is to the satisfaction of all parties

Insofar as my house is concerned, Geh's 2 year long tirade needs to be put in context:

The approved plans comply with the coverage requirements
It is a 3-storey building with a basement which is completely legal. Given the steep site and that the building is only 2 storeys at any point (in fact, 1 storey in over 50% of the erf), a further storey would be legal,
At the time of plan approval (2004), there was no restriction on a pool being built in the setback area.
The City refused to police the "built upon" area at that time. As this title deed condition is actually in favour of my neighbours, I obtained their approval for this indulgence prior to plan submission to the City, which is what the CBRRA encourages.
There are no building line encroachments, hence the planning approval.

Geh's architectural planning applications almost always draw fierce resistance from affected neighbours, for the manifold reasons enumerated in their various letters of objection. This is not the doing of the CBRRA and that situation will not be changed by Geh launching personal attacks on the CBRRA or individual members.

Chris Willemse's reply (CBRRA PLANNING)

____________________________________

Letter to the Atlantic Sun, 5 August 2010:

Regarding the Camps Bay Residents’ and Ratepayers’ Association (CBRRA) letter “Crystal clear”, Atlantic Sun, July 29.

I have been a Camps Bay resident and architect since 1971, was an active member of the CBRRA and I am fully aware of the ongoing developmental calamities, drama and bickering in our suburb.

Ratepayer and civic associations can play a very important role and have done good work in several fields. However many members and often unelected activists are conservative individuals who simply can't accept change and would prefer to turn the clock back to the “good old days”, but the rest of us know that urban renewal and densification is essential. Typical case: the Green Point Stadium and Urban Park. First court cases, demonstrations and now praise by the same antagonists.

Here in Camps Bay we now have the Crystal case, amongst others, where Chris Willemse for the CBRRA has now for months complained about all the “illegalities” approved by the City and the construction by the “greedy” developers (see CBRRA blog page) who want to line their pockets with gold as is often claimed by objectors.

Several years ago I designed the four town houses next door (29 Woodford Avenue) and had to get the consent of the neighbours and CBRRA for the four units and had to also consider the Crystal site conditions.

At that stage the old flats known as Trauben Heights was already a rundown, dilapidated building with no gardens, unkempt embankment with half dead and burned alien shrubs, rocks and no pavement. CBRRA and neighbours complained over years to the owners and the City without success. It is also a fact that the old flats were on a level platform well above the street more or less where the current new ground floor is. The parking basement was largely excavated into the embankment. Furthermore the zoning scheme permits 2.10m fill above the original natural level. Whatever Mr Willemse's argument, the new embankments and retaining walls are a vast improvement over the past situation. When in a few years the plants have grown and cover the ground and walls the previously unattractive streetscape will certainly be an enhancement to the built environment. Yes, the building is large, but this is what the title deed and zoning scheme permits, so why bash the developer and the City? Without developers we would not have rental accommodation, no work, no jobs.

Mr Willemse's vendetta against developers, the City and individuals like myself is the height of hypocrisy when viewed against his own development at 13 Blinkwater Road Camps Bay where he started to build his own four-floor development, the top floor in front of his previous house terrace behind which he sold. The development exceeds permissible coverage, the building lines are encroached and structures built on the street boundary are in conflict with the title deed and applicable law. It also seems that in this case the plans were approved erroneously.

Instead of looking at the Crystal pavement, as Chris suggests, have a look at his interdicted development.

A person like that should not judge others! Apart from this Medburn Road, Woodford Ave and others to a large extent do not have accessible pedestrian pavements. There are also not many mothers in Camps Bay pushing prams, but Mr Willemse is on a Robin Hood ego trip and should get real for the benefit of his CBRRA and all of us.

I also think The Crystal looks a bit oversized, but very much better than the old ugly flats in Camps Bay. The CBRRA should use their scarce resources and the empty “war kitty” in a more proactive manner elsewhere.

Good luck with that!

Thomas Geh, Camps Bay architect

AGM 2010 Agenda

2010-08-10T12:08:00.000+02:00

CBRRA ‘s Annual General Meeting

Thursday 19 August 2010 @ 19h30

AGENDA

• Welcome

• Chairperson’s Report

• Approval of 2009 AGM Minutes

• Election of ManCo Members for 2010 of 2011

• Speaker: Mariette Du Toit-Helmbold (CEO Cape Tourism)

• Speaker: Leigh Goldschmidt (CB Community Medics)

• Finance Report

• Approval of Annual Financial Statements 31 Dec ‘09

• Planning

• Speaker: Councillor Marga Haywood

• Rates & New Municipal Boundary

• Speaker: Roger Trythall (Ensuring Energy Security )
Read all about the presentation ‹‹here››

• Dogwalking Survey Feedback

• Other Matters

• Questions from the floor

• Closure

READ all about CBRRA's ACHIEVEMENTS over the last year.

Achievements

2010-08-06T19:53:00.000+02:00

CBRRA ACHIEVEMENTS IN 2009 – 2010

Worked together in a successful communal effort with several other Camps Bay civic organisations in Dec 2009 to get illegal ‘changing rooms’ removed from the grass verges.
Assisted in obtaining large rates repayments for CBRRA members from excessive rate assessments.
Removed unsightly and illegal signs on a continuous basis.
Assisted with the clean up of The Glen, The Little Glen and public spaces in Camps Bay.
Ran survey amongst community members regarding their views on Dogwalking, the result of which is to be proposed at the next Ward meeting for inclusion in the new by-law.
Ongoing servitudes prepared to enable fair and amicable legally enforceable agreements between neighbours, builders and developers, thereby encouraging positive and sympathetic redevelopment.
Founder member of the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance (GCTCA) which brings problems within the City Council Planning and Rates departments to the attention of politicians and City Council officialdom and assists ratepayers associations in their dealings with Municipal, Provincial and National governmental affairs.
Alerted the City Parks to cut verges later, enabling the ‘fynbos’ to bloom and reseed.
Assisted Auctioneers and the Heritage Committee to ensure the protection of the Stone Cottages in Geneva Drive, icons of Camps Bay heritage, when they were put up for auction and threatened with unsuitable redevelopment.
Ensured that events proposed for Camps Bay, especially during seasonal holidays along the beachfront, would not prevent residents from the peaceful enjoyment of their properties while still encouraging the lively and friendly ambiance of Camps Bay as a holiday destination.
Prompted the City Council to finally offer free trees and shrubs for planting in Camps Bay’s public spaces.
Assisted Camps Bay Schools campus in their ongoing attempts to obtain new leases of a suitable length for their playing fields.
Supported the CB Community Medics, including cash donations.
Representation on the CB Community Police Forum and Liquor Licensing Committee.
CBRRA registered as a Non-Profit Organisation.

SOME OF CBRRA’s PREVIOUS ACHIEVEMENTS

Enforced the previous government to allow Camps Bay to be a mixed race beach – the first in South Africa in the 1980s – within two years all beaches in the country were mixed.
Persuaded the City Council:
– to limit buildings to not exceed 10m high above ground level to eaves level after the erection of Sonnekus Flats in the 1970s;
– to demolish the civic centre in the 1980s;
– to expropriate the Rotunda Hotel and Ballroom and to preserve the latter;
– to compile the proposal call for a new village centre and hotel and assisted in the adjudication and monitor the construction.
Initiated the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and created the master design for the redevelopment of Camps Bay main beach in 2001. Continue to incentivise City Council to carry out the uncompleted redevelopment plan of the beachfront.
Monitoring the EIA process and controlling the development of the Roundhouse site together with Friends of the Glen.
Initiated the construction by City Council of amenities buildings at Maidens Cove beach.
Arranged for City Council to convert one east / west soccer field to two north / south fields at the sports club.
Resisted multiple applications for shopping centres, parking basements, cinemas and other development under the soccer field.
Won four court cases against City Council resulting in amendments to the zoning scheme.
Assisted in the responses to the proposed new Integrated Zoning Scheme since 2001.
Motivated City Council to erect a lifesaver’s hut on main beach, monitor design and building.
After killings of pedestrians by motorists in Victoria Road, CBRRA motivated Council to erect pedestrian zebra crossings and initiated their maintenance.

AGM Agenda

2010-08-06T19:38:00.000+02:00

CBRRA ‘s Annual General Meeting

Thursday 19 August 2010 @ 19h30

AGENDA

• Welcome

• Chairperson’s Report

• Approval of 2009 AGM Minutes

• Election of ManCo Members for 2010 of 2011

• Speaker: Mariette Du Toit-Helmbold (CEO Cape Tourism)

• Speaker: Leigh Goldschmidt (CB Community Medics)

• Finance Report

• Approval of Annual Financial Statements 31 Dec ‘09

• Planning

• Speaker: Councillor Marga Haywood

• Rates & New Municipal Boundary

• Speaker: Roger Trythall (Ensuring Energy Security )

• Dogwalking Survey Feedback

• Other Matters

• Questions from the floor

• Closure

READ all about CBRRA's ACHIEVEMENTS over the last year.

Crystal Clear - Atlantic Sun 29 July 2010

2010-07-30T08:53:00.000+02:00

The Editor
Atlantic Sun

Dear Sir

Your article “City’s planning decisions probed” (Atlantic Sun 22 July) refers.
Whereas the Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA) is affiliated to the GCTCA and supports their efforts in this matter, there are issues specific to Camps Bay that must be highlighted in response to the rather pious comments attributed to the Executive Director of Strategy & Planning, Mr Piet van Zyl.

CBRRA has raised many examples of incorrect planning approvals over the years. These have, in the main, been ignored by the Planning Department (PD). On six occasions the CBRRA and affected neighbours have been forced into the uninviting position of pursuing exorbitant High Court action to correct the City’s planning decisions. In five of those cases (one is still awaiting judgment), interdicts were granted by the Court, based on the submissions that CBRRA had made to the PD in the first place.

Without going into the many CBRRA interventions, it is pertinent to raise one that has been on-going for the past 18 months: The Crystal apartment block, whose monolithic bulk straddles the area between Woodford Ave, Medburn Rd and the Camps Bay Drive.

Probably one of the largest developments in Camps Bay, it has received the protection of City planning officials from the outset. This included allowing the developer to continue construction without suitably approved plans for over a year. The weak excuse being that the top floors weren’t subject to planning deviation, so could continue to be built on an unauthorized basement, which “…would be sorted out later…” !!

CBRRA contends that there are at least 4 major planning violations that have been ignored by the PD. This has been supported by expert Senior Counsel opinion. The PD dismisses this and relies on its own SC opinion, which fails to cover all points raised – but that is a separate issue. CBRRA requested the City to approach the High Court for a declarator order to decide the differences in SC opinions. Not only was it crucial to determine the illegality or otherwise of the proposed building but could also have been used as a means to clarify many planning laws that seem unclear to both the City and the communities they purportedly serve. Predictably, citing the usual excuses, this was rejected and the opinion favouring the developer taken as correct.

However, throughout this process, the CBRRA has based its opposition to this massive development on indisputable fact. And thanks to Cllrs Taki Amira and JP Smith, as late as February of this year, CBRRA were shown the new revised plans that were to be approved the following day. The most cursory inspection of these plans revealed a raft of illegalities and the PD were left to go back to the developer with the bad news.
The solution was, of course, simple: Don’t show revised plans to the CBRRA next time. Just approve it. This they did.
Unfortunately, the illegality on the ground couldn’t be brushed aside so easily – so the situation now exists that the building that has been built does not conform with the approved plans. This in itself is illegal.
Even more unfortunately, Mr van Zyl has not seen fit to “act immediately” despite the numerous requests by CBRRA and neighbours to do so, over a considerable period of time.

CBRRA encourages your readers to inspect the sidewalk along Medburn Rd. The approved plans indicate a 2.1m retaining wall on the boundary, measured more or less from the adjacent kerb level, with the entire distance between this wall and the kerb being an almost level grassed walking area. The reality is that the City have allowed the developer to illegally expropriate City land to create an unstable earth bank that serves only to hide a 4.2m high retaining wall. The reason for this is that it hides an illegal “basement”, which in turn hides the true height of the apartments which is, in our opinion, illegal.
You will also note the 400mm wide sidewalk provided by the developer in lieu of the 1500mm required. It is impossible to even push a pram on this “sidewalk.”

CHRIS WILLEMSE
CHAIR : PLANNING CBRRA

Council Paints Road Lines in Camps Bay

2010-07-26T15:15:00.000+02:00

This Article was place in the Atlantic Sun of 29 July 2010

From: Elizabeth Thompson
To: Michelle Talliard; Faried Allie; Duncan Daries; Taki Amira
Cc: Henry Du Plessis; Mike Marsden; Trevor Steyn; Richard Dames; Marga Haywood
Subject: RE: Road Painting Team and Robot Repair.

Dear Mr Dames,

Thank you so much for taking the time to convey your appreciation to the department and especially the team responsible for lines and signs. I also appreciate the time spent on taking some photos and sending them on as i am sure it will mean a lot to our team.

Faried,
Please convey this message to the relevant depot and well done to your guys.

Kind Regards

Councillor Elizabeth Thompson

From: Richard Dames
To: Elizabeth Thompson; CBRRA ManCo

Good Afternoon Everyone

Attached please find photos representing the fruits of hard work. After much pleading and many email requests, we finally have our Zebra Crossings repainted and wonders of all, we're also having all our lines repainted. What wonderful news.

Added to that, the Traffic Department has also made sure that our Traffic lights are in 100% working order. Replacing the "VERY BADLY DAMAGED" grey cover with a NEW one. This damaged was caused by unscrupulous persons who feel it makes a excellent BANKIE!

So to prevent further damage in the future, the Traffic dept is also seriously deciding to fix "anti seating" fixtures to prevent further seating in the future. This was confirmed upon my discussing the matter with the repair team on site.

I also had the privilege of speaking to Splinters, the road painting supervisor, to thank him from us, for being there and finally coming out and repainting our lines.

I would like to thank the Council and show our appreciation and demonstrate that Camps Bay community recognise and sincerely appreciate Council's efforts in keeping our city and suburb well groomed.

Regards
Richard Dames
Cleansing and Environment and Heritage: CBRRA

The Crystal Development Appeal continues

2010-07-26T11:21:00.000+02:00

From: Chris Willemse
Date: 26 July 2010
To: Piet van Zyl
Cc: Marian Nieuwoudt, Taki Amira, Jean-Pierre Smith, Cheryl Walters, Ossie Gonsalves, Marius Lourens, CBRRA ManCo; Gabriel Fagan, Gavin Van Schalkwyk
Subject: Re: The Crystal, Woodford Ave, Camps Bay

Dear Mr van Zyl

No further communicaion was received by the CBRRA as per your attached e-mail. Further, another week after that timeline has passed and there is no indication as to whether you will schedule the promised meeting. In the interim, a building that does not conform with approved plans has been signed off by your PD and occupancy certificates issued - and new owners are physically taking occupation. This does make a bit of a mockery of the statements attributed to you in the Atlantic Sun of 22 July 2010. Please advise if this meeting will be held, given that it is extremely urgent.

Regards

Chris Willemse
CBRRA Planning Chair

From: Piet van Zyl
To: Chris Willemse
Cc: Marian Nieuwoudt ; Taki Amira ; Jean-Pierre Smith ; Cheryl Walters ; Ossie Gonsalves ; Marius Lourens ; CBRRA ManCo; Gabriel Fagan ; Gavin Van Schalkwyk
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010
Subject: RE: The Crystal, Woodford Ave, Camps Bay

Dear Mr Willemse

Receipt is acknowledged of your e-mail of 8 July 2010. I have been informed that Ald Marian Nieuwoudt will be out of the office on official business for the whole of next week. Your meeting request will therefore stand over until she is back in the office on 19 July 2010. A further communication will be sent out during the course of next week.

Regards

Piet van Zyl
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR : STRATEGY & PLANNING
CITY OF CAPE TOWN

Read the rest of the communication ‹‹here››

WhaleTales Sweet & Sour Awards

2010-07-23T10:06:00.000+02:00

The WhaleTales Sweet & Sour Service Awards are presented every Friday on the WhaleTales blog. Nominations for the Sweet and Sour Service Awards can be sent to Chris von Ulmenstein at info@whalecottage.com. Past winners of the Sweet and Sour Service Awards can be read on the Friday posts of the blog, and in the WhaleTales newsletters on the www.whalecottage.com website.

THIS WEEK:

The Sweet Service Award goes to the 1500 Capetonians who participated in the Madiba Unity Fan Walk on Sunday, in honour of Nelson Mandela’s birthday, and to retain the unity amongst Capetonians developed during the World Cup. The Fan Walk was initiated and organised by Jacqui Biess and her daughters from Charly’s Bakery.

The Sour Service Award goes to the parking guards in the Cape Town city centre, who seem to have been appointed on their degree of rudeness and harassment towards city shoppers, rather than on their ability to efficiently collect the parking monies with charm! With their orange bibs and blue overalls they are highly visible, and have become a deterrent to many wishing to go into the city. Recently I parked near Marcellino’s Bakery, a 5 minute stop at most. As I came out of the bakery, the parking guard was already at my car, and refused to get out of the way when I tried to close my car door. I had to ask the CCID security guard, who was standing with him, to call the police, so that I could protect myself from him, as I did not know what he would do to me, in my own vehicle. Similarly, a guard in Barrack Street threatened to clamp the car wheel if I did not pay upfront - in Sea Point we pay afterwards. In both cases the communication came with extreme rudeness. The cost of parking is more than the cost of buying two bread rolls at Marcellino’s Bakery, hardly an incentive to go there now, except on a ’drive-through’ basis!
Chris von Ulmenstein
http://bit.ly/b90UUi

CBRRA congratulates CBCommunity Groups

2010-07-18T17:13:00.000+02:00

16 July 2010

Attention:

Ian Merrington @ Camps Bay Watch

Members of the Camps Bay Watch

Peter Mead @ Camps Bay Police Forum

Lt. Col Ian Rudman @ SAPS

Bernard Schäfer @ Camps Bay Community Security Initiative

Re: CBRRA congratulates the Camps Bay community organizations for the arrest and sentencing of John Mthambo

The CBRRA extends its congratulations to the members of the Camps Bay Watch and the CBCSI, the Camps Bay Police Forum and SAPS for the incredible work done on the John Mthambo case.

It is gratifying that these organisations working together with the community ensure that criminals are tracked down, arrested and sentenced. You deserve full credit this and we would like to congratulate you for the tremendous work done on a daily basis in our community.

Yours truly,

Charles Wells

CBBRA (Chairperson)

The vuvuzela legacy lives on

2010-07-18T12:45:00.000+02:00

Courtesy Design Indaba: http://www.designindaba.com/news-snippet/vuvuzela-legacy-lives

Soccer fans, tourists and Capetonians enjoyed the sight of Hyundai’s giant vuvuzela on Cape Town’s unfinished highway.

At 35 metres long and 55 metres in diameter this super horn has just made it into the Guinness World Records for the world’s largest vuvuzela.

The (in)famous unfinished highway has been home to the vuvuzela since 27 May 2010. In the build-up to the World Cup, a countdown-clock was installed just below the vuvuzela and marked down the time until the big day. During the World Cup it displayed the number of goals that had been scored during the tournament.

The vuvuzela with its familiar-sounding horn quickly became an iconic part of the Cape Town cityscape.

Albrecht Grundel, operations director of Hyundai SA said they were “thrilled to be in the Guinness World Records. This has been an exciting project and in ideal platform to contribute to the excitement and gees around the World Cup”.

Charly's for Madiba Cake magic

2010-07-18T12:28:00.000+02:00

Courtesy Whaletales @ http://bit.ly/bkyDEX

Cape Town has a super fun bakery that pulls out all the stops to make a special person’s birthday a special one, the creativity of Charly’s Bakery knowing no bounds. Strictly speaking, Charly’s Bakery should be called Jacqui’s Bakery, as it is Jacqui Biess who is the energetic and creative powerhouse running Charly’s Bakery with her three daughters Alex, Daniella and Roche.

In honour of Nelson Mandela’s birthday on Sunday, Jacqui has been infected by the spirit of unity and goodwill amongst South Africans resulting from the World Cup, and is calling on Capetonians to join her, her family, staff and friends in walking the Madiba Unity Fan Walk on Madiba’s special 92nd birthday. At the end of the Walk, Charly’s Bakery will share a special 4-tiered Golden Wicked chocolate birthday cake with the walkers, serving at least 300, and singing Happy Birthday to Mandela.

Says Jacqui: “Our Tata has shown us what it means to be free and to be able to live without fear of being who you are. He did it for 67 years, we can do it for 67 minutes”.

The planned route starts off at 12h00 on Sunday at St George’s Cathedral, moves along St George’s Mall, and links up with the bridge which crosses over Buitengracht Street, onto the Prestwich Memorial precinct at St Andrews Church (at Truth Coffees). The Fan Walk will link in with the Ubuntu Festival, which takes place this weekend. DJ’s and live musicians such as Hot Water, The Gugulethu Tenors, Coda, Sterling EQ, and Mthika will peform along the route. There will be a strong CCID presence in the city.

Voting for dogwalking still open!

2010-07-06T07:18:00.000+02:00

A reminder to all Camps Bay residents that the dogwalking survey is still open for voting. If you have already voted, we would like to thank you. For those of you who haven't voted, please take the time to do so. Even if you do not have a dog, it is in the interest of the whole community that a well-balanced summary be structured from the votes. If you are not a member of CBRRA, we urge you to become a member in order to vote. Please follow the link for membership ‹‹here››. Final comments will be accepted until the 31st of July. Go to this ‹‹link›› to enter your vote!

How Well Do You Know Camps Bay?

2010-06-27T11:05:00.000+02:00

Answer the questions below and then scroll to see how well you did. No cheating!!

Photo © Hillel Turok (authors) and Albert Louw of Citi Graphics (publisher)

Question 1
Where will you find Philly's plaque?

Question 2
What is the current name of Lady Smith's Pass?

Question 3
What was the original use for the building which is now Theatre on the Bay?

Question 4
Dr James Barry was a friend of Lord Charles Somerset and a frequent visitor to teh Round House. Legend has it that Dr Barry's ghost haunts the Round House. What was remarkable about the good doctor?

Question 5
Who built Victoria Road?

Question 6
In which year was Camps Bay incorporated into Cape Town?

Question 7
What was the fairy cart?

Question 8
In which year was the Rotunda built?

Question 9
One Camps Bay landmark originally had the name Stinkwater? What is the current name?

Question 10
An early Camps Bay water supply was built on Table Mountain. What is its name?

Now scroll right down...
|
v

|
v

|
v

|
v

|
v

...and check your answers:

Question 1
On the wall in front of the Library. Philly was a famous horse in Camps Bay.

Question 2
Kloof Road

Question 3
It was a power house for the trams.

Question 4
At death, HE was found to be a SHE who had lived her life masquerading as a man, despite having given birth to a child.

Question 5
Thomas Bain. He used convict labout. The road was named in honour of Queen Victoria's Jubilee in 1888.

Question 6
1913

Question 7
The night soil cart.

Question 8
1904

Question 9
Blinkwater

Question 10
Woodhead Reservoir

How did you do?
10 – Camps Bay Chronicler
9 – Expert
6-8 – An Informed Resident
5 and under – There's a great book in the library that you should read!

WC2010: How SA dreamed the impossible dream

2010-06-26T11:02:00.000+02:00

Organisers now face a tall order: to convince South Africans that playing host is as fun as playing to win.

South Africa's Katlego Mphela scores his side's second goal against France to raise hopes of an even greater adventure for Bafana Bafana – but it was not to be. Photograph: Dominic Barnardt/Getty Images

For a while they really did believe. When Katlego Mphela gave South Africa a 2-0 lead over 10-man France, then ran to fetch the ball with a sense of urgency, the entire nation held its breath and hoped.

"Unite in prayer, no matter your faith, creed or religion. The miracle is here," said one South African message on Twitter. Another tweet pleaded: "Come on Mexico, come on Bafana! Make dreams happen!!"

Much has been written about the miracle of the rainbow nation, the Nelson Mandela magic and the epic victory of the Springboks in the 1995 rugby World Cup. For a few precious minutes, with Uruguay also leading Mexico, South Africa was again dreaming an impossible dream.

It was not to be. France pulled a goal back and, as everyone dreaded, South Africa became the first hosts in 80 years of World Cup football not to make the second round. But unlike the French they went out not with a whimper, but a bang. The mood at fan parks was bittersweet, with muted cheers for the victory tempered by disappointment that the great adventure is over.

The instant reaction from Twitter was one of honour redeemed and heads held high. Frewbru said: "The dream's not over – we still have the world's attention and SA is the centre of the sports universe for another 3 big weeks!"

ThatLloyd tweeted: "Well done #BafanaBafana from your new & greatest fan I believed in you and I still believe in You *pat on the backs* guys you did us proud."

TarrynHarbour posted: "We WON. We STILL WON. Our 83rd-ranked team BEAT #FRA and DREW with #mex . See you in Brazil, world! LOVE YOU #BAFANA!!"

And one tweet said simply: "Mobileandy is proud to the point of tears."

But the immediate reaction of South African TV pundits was rather less effusive, noting the inconsistency of Bafana Bafana's performances throughout the tournament. Andre Arendse, a former South Africa goalkeeper, said the minimum target had been a place in the last 16, so this must go down as a failure: "What's happened is disappointing from a host-nation point of view."

But Arendse added: "We always said it's an African World Cup. We do encourage South Africans to keep supporting the World Cup now. I think they will, they're passionate about football. Adopt an African team."

It will not be easy. The first wave of Bafanamania that greeted the opening match was never going to last. There are fair-weather fans the world over, but South Africa's have a reputation as more fickle than most.

The stream of people heading for the stadium exit 10 minutes before the end of the defeat by Uruguay implied a low pain threshold. The momentum behind the national "Football Friday" also appears to have waned. For weeks more and more people had been wearing the yellow Bafana shirt to their offices. But last Friday many were back in plain shirts and winter coats.

Attendances at fan parks have also dropped since the huge and optimistic crowds that gathered on the first day. Today it was reported that vendors who spent big to be in fan parks are taking legal action in a bid to recoup heavy losses because business has been so slow.

On a more positive note, many cars in Johannesburg can be seen flying the flags of other African nations. Many South Africans will rally around their neighbours, of whom Ghana look the best bet. But if, as seems all too possible, all six African countries go out in the first round, they will have to look elsewhere.

A recent poll by the Times newspaper in South Africa found people in Johannesburg say they would switch allegiance to Portugal, Holland, Brazil, Argentina and England. In Cape Town, four had already defected to Spain, Argentina or Germany.

This World Cup has attracted many South Africans who normally don't go to football, and who may well be blowing vuvuzelas and soaking up the occasion rather than admiring tactical nuances. Like the British at Wimbledon going crazy for tennis for two weeks only, these football virgins might well pack up their vuvuzelas and go back to rugby.

That would leave the World Cup like a regular sports tournament, much as last year's Confederations Cup was after the hosts had been eliminated. It should run smoothly and efficiently but move from the front pages to the back, becoming less about Africa and more about Argentina, Brazil, Spain and the other usual suspects.

Fifa and the local organisers now face a tall order: to convince South Africans that playing host is as fun as playing to win. "We must be gracious and welcoming hosts," said The Times of South Africa. "At least, until the last camera crew, journalist, tourist and team leave South Africa. Let's make this a tournament of great African memories."

Article taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jun/22/south-africa-world-cup-2010

The GCTCA confronts CCT Planning Dept

2010-06-26T10:39:00.000+02:00

FEEDBACK FROM THE MEETING WITH PIET VAN ZYL AND CO.

Hi all,

Our very sincere thanks to all who have sent in additions and improvements to the list of generic complaints and/or details of cases to illustrate the different complaints. The GCTCA’s dossier is coming along nicely, so please keep sending in your contributions.

The GCTCA yesterday had a very interesting second meeting with the City’s Executive Director: Strategy & Planning, Piet van Zyl, and the three Directors in the Planning Department. The City representatives initially objected strongly to the memo the GCTCA sent to the MEC in the Provincial Government but could not rebut any of the 16 categories of complaints made. The only defence offered was from one of the Directors who said some of the complaints implied malpractice or corruption by officials and that they were unable to enter into discussion of unsubstantiated allegations.

The outcome of the meeting was that was agreed the GCTCA’s allegations are serious and need serious discussion. As a next step the City will arrange a third meeting, which will be attended by the eight District Managers. For this third meeting, the GCTCA will prepare an updated version of the memo listing the generic complaints we wish to make, but excluding the actual cases in our dossier. And we shall obviously take great care to ensure that each of these complaints is legally defensible and can be substantiated.

Following that third meeting, the City will arrange a series of eight meetings, one in each of the eight Planning Districts, with the District Manager and planning officials of that District present, as well the top management. For each of those meetings, the GCTCA will need to prepare a dossier of the problem cases we wish to discuss with the City. Your association is very cordially invited to continue to submit details of cases to be included in the dossier and consider who from your association should attend the meeting for your District.

In parallel with all of this, the GCTCA has requested an interview with the MEC, the Hon. Anton Bredell.

All of your ideas, information and other inputs into this process will be very greatly appreciated.

Regards, Graham
GCTCA VICE CHAIR AND SECRETARY

Cape Town Fan Walk great success

2010-06-23T15:43:00.000+02:00

It turns out that one of the main attractions on Cape Town 2010 FIFA World Cup match days is the pedestrian amble known at the Host City Cape Town Fan Walk.Says Cape Town Partnership’s 2010 Project Coordinator and the Host City’s Fan Walk Project Manager, Carola Koblitz: ‘We originally said we would be happy if 15 000 people walked to the Cape Town Stadium and ecstatic if we had 18 000 in total. We never expected to see as many as 60 000 people using the Fan Walk per hour in its peak on Friday 11 June and even yesterday, during the wet and cold weather, we probably chalked up over 20 000!’

And it has become apparent that it’s not only stadium ticket holders that are walking the route, but curious fans just hoping to soak up the ambience and entertainment along the way. The walk has proved to be such a hit, it even received a 9 out of 10 rating in a popular weekend newspaper, which described the Host City Cape Town Fan Walk as ‘… safe, entertaining and probably the most fun way to get to the stadium.’

Photo © CODA

Event Organiser of the Host City Cape Town Fan Walk, Celebrity Services Africa Events, has pulled out all the stops to make the stroll a memorable occasion and have lined the 2.5-km route with a variety of vendor kiosks and street entertainment ranging from buskers and minstrels, to jazz bands, rappers, opera singers and solo artists belting out the blues. The entire route is also transformed come sundown as light shows play off buildings, a 6-metre vuvuzela blows a 3-metre flame, and those eager for a photo opportunity pose in and around the memorable artworks that have been erected for the event at the half-way point at St Andrew’s Square.

A highlight of each Cape Town match day is also a parade (even on rainy days!) which runs from St Andrews Square to the Cape Town Stadium, beginning 90 minutes prior to kick-off. The route starts at Exchange Place on St George’s Mall (opposite the Cape Town Station) and runs along Waterkant Street, over Buitengraght Street, onto St Andrews Square and finally along Somerset Road and Main Road, Green Point before it reaches the Stadium precinct. Kiosks begin operating six hours before kickoff and entertainment begins five hours before kickoff.

For more information on the Host City Cape Town Fan Walk or images of the activities en route, please contact Carola Koblitz at 021 419 1881 or email carola@capetownpartnership.co.za

Dear World Cup Visitors

2010-06-23T15:17:00.000+02:00

Now that you are safely in our country you are no doubt happily realising you are not in a war zone. This may be in stark contrast to what you have been bracing yourself for should you have listened to Uli Hoeness or are an avid reader of English tabloids, which as we all know are only good for wrapping fish ‘n chips and advancing the careers of large-chested teens on page three.

As you emerge blinking from your luxury hotel room into our big blue winter skies, you will surely realise you are far more likely to be killed by kindness than by a stray bullet. Remember that most of the media reports you have read, which have informed your views on South Africa, will have been penned by your colleagues. And you know what journos are like, what with their earnest two thousand word opuses on the op-ed pages designed to fix this country’s ills in a heartbeat. Based on exhaustive research over a three-day visit.

Funnily enough, we are well aware of the challenges we face as a nation and you will find that 95% of the population is singing from the same song-sheet in order to ensure we can live up to our own exacting expectations.

We are also here to look after you and show you a good time. Prepare to have your preconceived notions well and truly shattered.

photographs © CODA on Flickr - click to view

For instance, you will find precious few rhinos loitering on street corners, we don’t know a guy in Cairo named Dave just because we live in Johannesburg, and our stadiums are magnificent, world-class works of art.

Which is obviously news to the Sky TV sports anchor who this week remarked that Soccer City looked ‘ a bit of a mess’. She didn’t realize the gaps in the calabash exterior are to allow in natural light and for illumination at night, and not the result of vandalism or negligence.

The fact that England, the nation which safely delivered Wembley Stadium two years past its due date, is prepared to offer us South Africans advice on stadium-readiness should not be surprising. The steadiest stream of World Cup misinformation has emanated from our mates the Brits over the past couple of years.

If it’s not man-eating snakes lurking in Rooney’s closet at the team’s (allegedly half-built) Royal Bafokeng training base, then it’s machete-wielding gangs roaming the suburbs in search of tattooed, overweight Dagenham dole-queuers to ransack and leave gurgling on the pavement.

In fact what you are entering is the world’s most fascinating country, in my opinion. I’m pretty sure you will find that it functions far more smoothly, is heaps more friendly and offers plenty more diversions than you could possibly have imagined.

In addition to which, the population actually acts like human beings, and not like they are being controlled by sinister forces from above which turns them into bureaucratically-manipulated robots.

Plus we have world’s most beautiful women. The best weather. Eight channels of SuperSport. Food and wine from the gods themselves. Wildlife galore. (Love the Dutch team’s bus slogan: “Don’t fear the Big 5; fear the Orange 11”).

Having said all that, Jo’burg is undoubtedly one of the world’s most dangerous cities. Just ask those Taiwanese tourists who got out of their hire car to take close-up snaps of tawny beasts at the Lion Park a few years back. Actually, ask what’s left of them. And did you know the chances of being felled by cardiac arrest from devouring a mountain of meat at one of our world class restaurants has been statistically proven to be 33.3% higher in Jozi than in any other major urban centre not built upon a significant waterway? It’s true. I swear. I read it in a British tabloid.

Having recently spent two years comfortably cocooned in small town America, I’m only too aware of how little much of the outside world knows about this country. The American channel I used to work for has a massive battalion of employees descending on World Cup country. It has also apparently issued a recommendation to its staff to stay in their hotels when not working.

Given that said corporation is headquartered in a small town which many say is “best viewed through the rear-view mirror”, I find the recommendation, if it’s true, to be utterly astounding. In fact I don’t believe it is true. Contrary to the global stereotype, the best Americans are some of the sharpest people in the world. The fact they have bought most tickets in this World Cup proves the point.

Of course I have only lived in Johannesburg, city of terror and dread, virtually all my life, so don’t have the in-depth knowledge of say, an English broadsheet journalist who has been in the country for the weekend, but nevertheless I will share some of my observations gleaned over the years.

Any foreign tourist or media representative who is worried about his safety in South Africa should have a word with the Lions rugby fans from last year, or the Barmy Army cricket supporters (lilywhite hecklers by day, slurring, lager-fuelled lobsters by night). They managed just fine, just like the hundreds of thousands of fans who have streamed into the country over the past fifteen years for various World Cups, Super 14 matches, TriNations tests and other international events. Negligible crime incidents involving said fans over said period of time.

Trivia question: which country has hosted the most global sporting events over the past decade and a half? You don’t need me to answer that, do you?

In addition. Don’t fret when you see a gaggle of freelance salesmen converge on your car at the traffic lights (or robots as we like to call them) festooned with products. You are not about to be hijacked. Here in Mzansi (nickname for SA) we do a lot of our purchasing at robots. Here you can stock up on flags, coat hangers, batteries, roses for the wife you forgot to kiss goodbye this morning and a whole host of useful merchandise.

Similarly, that guy who runs up as you park the rental car outside the pub intends no malice. He’s your car guard. Give him a buck or two and your vehicle will be safe while you refuel for hours on our cheap, splendid beer. Unless someone breaks into it, of course.

We drive on the left in this country. Exercise caution when crossing the road at a jog-trot with 15 kilograms of camera gear on your back. Exercise common sense full stop. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you want to leave wads of cash in your hotel room like our Colombian friends, don’t be surprised if it grows wings.

Bottomline. Get out there and breathe in great lusty lungfuls of this amazing nation. Tuck into our world-class food and wines. Disprove the adage that white men can’t dance at our throbbing, vibrant night-clubs. Learn to say hello in all eleven official languages. Watch at least one game in a township. You will not be robbed and shot. You will be welcomed like a lost family member and looked after as if you are royalty. Ask those Bulls rugby fans who journeyed to Soweto recently.

With a dollop of the right attitude, this country will change your life.

It’s Africa’s time. Vacate your hotel room.

Join the party. Waka waka eh eh.

ARTICLE FROM Peter Davies @ Supersport

CCT: First signs of World Cup economic success staring to show

2010-06-23T12:13:00.000+02:00

First signs of 2010 FIFA World Cup™ economic success starting to show

MEDIA RELEASE
22 JUNE 2010

Initial surveys and research show that Cape Town restaurants, informal traders, hotels and shopping malls are experiencing better than usual business over the winter period, as foreign football fans are flocking to Cape Town for the 2010 FIFA World Cup™.

Overall, the business activity in Cape Town seems to have picked up since the arrival of the first team in the country, said Mansoor Mohamed, Executive Director: Economic and Social Development and Tourism for the City of Cape Town. “The V&A Waterfront shopping mall has seen a record increase in the amount of visitors in the first week of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™. Suburban shopping malls in Cape Town like Cavendish, Century City and Tygervalley have also seen a spike in sales. The restaurants in Cape Town are also doing better than expected trade, with some even beating their actual Christmas figures.”

Most of the Municipal Markets in Cape Town, for example Greenmarket Square, the Grand Parade, Green Point and Mitchells Plain, have seen a significant boost in trading activity since the start of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ ten days ago. “Informal traders have been well prepared by the City of Cape Town’s economic unit to take advantage of the World Cup visitor numbers,” Mohamed said.

Initial surveys are showing that the accommodation numbers for Cape Town thus far are generally lower than expected, except for budget accommodation, which is looking promising. Although the more expensive hotels in Cape Town are experiencing lower than expected occupancy (under 20% to 40%), it is still a bumper season compared to last year, said Mohamed.

The City is expecting higher accommodation numbers towards the end of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™, as people come down from Johannesburg to enjoy the last part of their South African holiday in Cape Town. “Cape Town has won the ‘Oscars’ of the Travel Industry (World Travel Awards) as the leading tourism destination on the African continent for two consecutive years in a row. More recently, it won the prestigious award of being the best destination worldwide for Responsible Tourism (2009 Virgin Responsible Tourism Awards). These awards are the culmination of strategic partnerships between the City of Cape Town, its tourism agencies and the tourism industry. This is why Cape Town has been a destination of choice for many of the international visitors in the country for the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ and we expect an increase in the number of international visitors as the tournament progresses,” Mohamed added.

Even though less people than expected seem to be coming to Cape Town during the tournament, early economic research suggests that tourists are staying for longer periods and are spending more. A recent Grant Thornton Study on the economic impact of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ supports these findings.

“If visitor numbers are down 20% from our initial estimates, but those who do come spend 20% more and stay three days longer than originally anticipated, we will see an increase of nearly 40% in the expected economic impact that the tournament will have, which is very encouraging,” said Mohamed.

Mohamed emphasized that these findings are only based on initial surveys and that the true economic impact of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ will only be established by comprehensive research following the end of the tournament. He is, however, confident that Cape Town will benefit from the 2010 World Cup™ in the next few decades to come. “The FIFA 2010 World Cup™ is the single most important event for South Africa and the African continent in recent time. It is positively changing the world’s perceptions about Africa. The socio-economic benefits of the FIFA 2010 World Cup™ will be felt for a very long time and it is therefore important that government and businesses develop strategic partnerships to reap the benefits of this tournament over the next 20 years.”

END

ISSUED BY: COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CAPE TOWN

MEDIA ENQUIRIES:
MANSOOR MOHAMED
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM
TEL: 021 400 2589 CELL: 084 421 4428

CCT: Registration Time for Estatge Agents and Auctioneers

2010-06-23T09:25:00.000+02:00

MEDIA RELEASE
NO. 473 / 2010
21 JUNE 2010

The City of Cape Town wishes to remind all estate agents and auctioneers that, from 01 July, they will again be required to register individually with the municipality for permission to display property marketing boards and directional signage on City-owned property.

For the 2010/2011 financial year, each agent will be required to pay an annual registration fee of R628.40 and a display fee of R751.60 (including VAT) for their six permit stickers for the 2010/2011 financial year.

Upon registration, the City will issue six permit stickers per agent for the year, thus limiting the number of directional ‘show house’ signs allowed on City-owned property. During the past year, directional boards found with photocopied or counterfeit permit stickers were removed. The By-law does, however, make provision for the withdrawal of permits and the City will prosecute any agent or auctioneer who uses fraudulent stickers.

Each sticker, which is uniquely numbered, must be displayed on any directional board for the duration of the year. Faded or damaged stickers will be replaced at no cost on production of the originals.

The standard conditions for directional boards still apply. Signs displayed on the private property being marketed, and not exceeding 0.3m², will not require permit stickers.

Agents can register and obtain their six permit stickers at the following offices:
• Cape Town – Media City, 2nd Floor, cnr Hertzog Boulevard and Heerengracht
• South Peninsula – Plessey Building, 3 Victoria Road, cnr
• Main Road, Plumstead
• Kraaifontein - Civic Centre, Brighton Road
• Helderberg - cnr Fagan Street and Main Road, Strand

There are also satellite offices for dropping off and collecting applications:
• Blaauwberg office – Millpark Centre, Koeberg Road, Milnerton
• Athlone office – cnr Aden Avenue and George Street, Athlone
• Khayelitsha office - Stocks and Stocks Block E, Cnr Ntlazane and Ntlakohlaza streets, Khayelitsha
• Parow Civic Centre – Voortrekker Road.

Applications left at these offices will be sent to the Civic Centre for processing and then returned for collection.

Registration forms are available at all municipal offices. For electronic copies, e-mail Heloise.jacobs@capetown.gov.za or phone 021 400-6525.

Notwithstanding the above, the City is prepared to grant an extension until 31 July 2010 so that estate agents and auctioneers can submit their applications for registration and pay their permit sticker fees.

However, this extension comes with a caution that directional boards may only be displayed if they have original permit stickers attached, and they must still comply with all of the By-law rules for display during the extension period. Enforcement for all contraventions will still be enforced and charged for.

END

ISSUED BY: COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CAPE TOWN

MEDIA ENQUIRIES:
DEBBIE EVANS, CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICER
TEL: 021 400 6531 CELL: 084 222 1220

CBRRA ONLINE

2010-06-18T17:38:00.000+02:00

At CBRRA we aim to not only inform our members of every issue we are dealing with, but also to create a platform for members to participate and interact.

Apart from the articles posted on this blog you can also follow:
our tweets on Twitter
http://twitter.com/CBRRA

updates on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Camps-Bay-Ratepayers-Residents-Association/378721204667

and on our website
http://www.campsbayratepayers.co.za

Follow us and become involved today!

The Crystal Development continues

2010-05-28T07:28:00.000+02:00

The City PD passes the plans for The Crystal Development – again!

In spite of the following memorandum being handed in at a meeting on 22 June 2010 to Mr. Piet van Zyl, Cheryl Walters and other senior officials, the City has given the Developer instructions to continue with the work in a manner which the CBRRA still considers to be illegal.

CBBRA's Current Difficulties with the CCT Plan Passing Process:

Memorandum to Mr Piet van Zyl, CCT:

In recent times, CBRRA has had to resort to very expensive and time-consuming court cases to correct what it considers to be incorrectly passed plans by the City of Cape Town Planning Department. It has succeeded in four out of five cases.

The City defines Title Deeds which are not made out in favour of the City or the Provincial Government to be “inapplicable law” and in such a situation, only considers applications in terms of the Zoning Scheme.

However, when doing this and passing plans only in terms of the Zoning Scheme, it does not inform CBRRA or affected neighbours, having the attitude that if they are against the situation , they have recourse to the courts – usually when it is too late – and then of course there is the cost aspect which does not assist objectors.

Furthermore, when the public does go to court, the Council often uses Ratepayers’ money to employ legal teams to fight the cases instead of, as it should, having created the dispute with its original decision, not taking part in the case and abiding by the judgement of the court.

In meetings with objectors, the City Officials' attitude is to the effect that “... We hear your arguments, we see your legal opinions brought to your arguments, we do not agree with you and them. However, this is how we see things and, if you do not agree with us, you can always sue the City" knowing very well that the situation is usually against objectors who very seldom have the necessary finance to do so.

There is a sense of a lack of understanding or ability to concede that the City has made a mistake. There is no vehicle for the City to review its own passed plans which have been incorrectly passed (especially when passed without departures. When faced with obvious transgressions or mistakes, (see below) the City tends to attempt to assist the Owner/Developer to prepare rider plans to rectify matters, which rider plans it passes with little delay.

However, when an impasse has occurred, the City Officials will declare at meetings that they have “found a loophole in the regulations” to assist the Applicant to succeed. This approach concerns CBRRA which is under the impression that Officials should be impartial. At the same time they advise the Councillors that plans being queried are satisfactory and can / have been passed – until CBRRA again finds problems with them.

In conclusion, CBRRA has reservations about the performance of the City Planning Department and suggests an enquiry into all aspects of the Department’s activities which will improve the ability of the public at large to be treated by it in a more efficient and co-operative manner. At the same time, CBRRA queries the merits of the existence of the Developers’ Forum in conjunction with the City and the Western Cape Provincial Government on the grounds that the general public does not have any say in the activities thereof.

It recommends that a previous initiative to rectify this omission be revived. Here follow details of a serious problem project which currently concerns CBRRA :

THE CRYSTAL DEVELOPMENT, ERF 2352, WOODFORD AVENUE, CAMPS BAY

There is no need to repeat the details as to why CBRRA considers that many aspects of this development (passed twice by the City without departures) are illegal as CBRRA has carefully copied you in on all the details which have concerned CBRRA since about September 2008.

The City passed plans without departures for this application in late 2008. CBRRA raised serious reservations about the legality of the passed plans soon thereafter (over the height restriction, five “floors” in lieu of the three permitted in the title deed, the permitted “build–upon” area exceeded etc.

The new owners of the project submitted revised rider plans to the Council in about January 2009 which rendered the building illegal, as the basement was largely above ground. The City rejected these rider plans and only passed them (although still considered illegal by CBRRA) in about April 2010.

However, The City allowed the developer to continue construction unabated throughout the unpassed rider plan period – the developer never built in accordance with his originally passed plans. The building is now virtually completed, but still illegal.

The basement has been “reburied underground’ by the device of constructing freestanding illegally over-height concrete retaining walls some distance in front of the basement façade walls and placing earth fill between them and the basement and ± 500 mm thick on top of the projecting basement to create an illegal raised finished ground level over the still illegal basement. Suffice it to state that the Council allowed the Developer to continue building on rejected rider plans for over a year.

The Councillor concerned informed CBRRA that :

“I had up and until receipt of your letter been assured that all alterations to the buildings were in accordance with approved amended plans”.

This proved to be untrue.

After illegal earth fill was placed outside the site boundary on the public pavement against the walls and finished with a steep slope, to hide the illegally high front walls, the Councillor reported as follows :

'They (the Roads Engineers) advise me that they are permitted to allow a 3 degree fill on sidewalks, from the horizontal and that engineers are permitted to use discretion on individual applications. Understandably they could not comment, nor did I expect them to, on the decision by Roads Branch Table Bay but are of the opinion based on the photographs that the side walk portion in terms of their parameters was acceptable.

Therefore although I do not agree as to how it was done, in my mind the intent was to circumvent the requirements of the zoning scheme, I am legally bound to accept the decision by the engineers”.

At a subsequent emergency meeting chaired by Cllr Smith at CBRRA’s request, the City Roads Engineers denied that they had ever seen the plans and would not have passed them if they had. The City Landscaping Department wrote that it had never heard of this project and had never seen a landscaping plan.

As things presently stand, the Council recently instructed the Building Inspector to instruct the Developer to remove the illegal fill on the pavements in front of the illegal front boundary walls and issue a certificate of completion even although the removal of such fill would render the walls and the basement (therefore the whole building) behind illegal according to your BCO.

This instruction has recently been rescinded after representations from the Developer who state that they will remove the illegal fill on condition that the City does not pursue the other illegalities on the project. At present the matter is at a standstill.

ALL COMMUNICATION WITH THE CCT PD IN THIS REGARD IS POSTED BELOW:

ALL COMMUNICATION WITH THE CCT PD IN THIS REGARD IS POSTED BELOW:

8 July 2010

To: Piet van Zyl

Cc: Marian Nieuwoudt, Taki Amira, Jean-Pierre Smith, Cheryl Walters, Ossie Gonsalves, Marius Lourens, CBRRA Manco, Gabriel Fagan, Gavin Van Schalkwyk

Dear Mr van Zyl

Thank you for your reply and the detailed organogram of your department. Also without wishing to sound condescending, the CBRRA is fully conversant with this system and which is why, after being stonewalled by the District officials for over 14 months, it turned to your office for assistance. Sadly, as it appears from your letter, this will also be in vain.

To clarify the position better, the following must be noted:

To avoid the continual roundabout of dealing with your official's notorious inconsistent decision-making, CBRRA has not focussed, for the time being, on the further violations of this application, listed below - all ignored by the officials

• The title deed restriction of 3 floors in lieu of the 5 approved

• The title deed restriction of 25% built upon

• s7 of the NBR relating to derogation of value, where the officials have made no attempt to canvass the opinion of the community as they have done in other applications

• Misapplication of amdt 11 of the Zoning Scheme in places and ignoring it on the south-western parking area retaining wall

• Permitting a contravention of s98 of the Zoning Scheme relating to the height of a building

• Allowing the developer to continue construction without correctly approved plans for over a year, in the alternative, failing to enforce compliance with an approved plan (both criminal offences).

• Ignoring a very reasoned ex parte opinion relating to this application by Adv DF Irish SC

Instead, the CBRRA has concentrated on clear problems with the approved plans - details that have been indicated on the plans but, in reality, cannot be built out on the ground. The most obvious is the western boundary retaining wall along Medburn Rd.

The approved plans clearly show a 2.1m high retaining wall on the boundary and a grassed sidewalk of 1.5 m with a fall of approximately 150 - 200mm toward the kerb. This was the clear interpretation of the plans by Cllrs Smith and Amira and officials Gonsalves, Lourens, de Beer and Lewis. There is no reference to pre-existing ground levels. This is for the obvious reason that if the purported levels were used, then to hide the illegal basement, a 4m plus retaining wall on the boundary would have had to be indicated. This would be illegal.

However, as you must have noted during your site inspection, there is no sidewalk of 1.5m as depicted on the approved plans. Your officials have accommodated their developer by allowing it to expropriate City owned land that is for the benefit of the community, and build a geotechnically unstable bank on the sidewalk that is, again, not depicted on the approved plans. It is totally of no consequence what might have been or what could have been. As you might have noted from the aforegoing, CBRRA has simply highlighted a clear vilation by the developer, viz that it hasn't built according to an approved plan. The curious reaction of "maybe it isn't as on the plans but it could work if you consider the original levels" offered by Ossie Gonsalves and now repeated by you is astounding. The law requires that bulding be constructed in conformance with approved plans. It is trusted that you didn't have,as you referred to it, your "developer" hat on when you took this point of view.

In short, the developer submitted a plan which the City approved - now it must build to those plans.

Certainly, all of this bluster of denials is to hide one fact, which was so plainly pointed out by BCO Lourens at the meeting of the 4th June with the councillors - if the illegal bank on the sidewalk is removed, then the entire building becomes illegal.

CBRRA wishes to meet with you by latest Wednesday 14th July, to discuss the matter. It is imperative that Cllrs Smith, Amira, Haywood and Niewoudt are in attendance.

Regards

Chris Willemse

__________________________________________

Wednesday, June 30

From: Piet van Zyl

To: Chris Willemse

Cc: Marian Nieuwoudt ; Taki Amira ; Jean-Pierre Smith ; Cheryl Walters ; Ossie Gonsalves ; Marius Lourens ; CBRRA Manco; Gabriel Fagan, Gavin Van Schalkwyk

Dear Mr Willemse

Further to my interim reply of 21 June 2010, I now wish to respond to the matters that you have raised with respect to The Crystal Development in Woodford Ave, Camps Bay.

I apologise for the delay in replying to you, occasioned by the fact that I have had to follow up on certain aspects relating to this development project in order to give you a comprehensive response. My reply broadly covers three areas of response:

1. Comments on your observations on my functional roles and responsibilities.

2. Brief overview of my Directorate’s operational model, operating protocols and delegations of authority.

3. Specific comments on The Crystal Development.

At the outset, I want to place on record that I am not reluctant to get involved in specific or even so-called “controversial” projects, development applications or any related statutory approvals. During my professional career of some 30 years I have at different stages worn the hat of the “regulator” and also the “developer”. I therefore understand the demands and dynamics of both these roles very well. With regard to my current position as part of the regulatory authority, I fully understand the need to enforce the technical and statutory requirements of the National Building Regulations and the Zoning Scheme and to follow due legal and administrative processes in land use and building development decision-making. However, your expectation that I should “rein in the officials who seem hell-bent on allowing a clearly illegal building to be erected in Camps Bay” is, with respect, misdirected and also does not acknowledge my Directorate’s operational model and operating protocols, nor the Council’s System of Delegations.

My Directorate is comprised of six departments, of which the Planning and Building Development Management Department (PBDM) is one. The operational model of my Directorate generally, and PBDM specifically, is based on a decentralised eight district model. The City has been divided up into eight geographic districts, one of which is the Table Bay District and which includes the Camps Bay area. This decentralised operational model, together with the political decision-making structures of the Planning and Environment Portfolio Committee (PEPCO), the Spatial Planning, Environment and Land Use Management Committee (SPELUM) and the Sub-Councils, forms the basis of the City’s land use and building development decision-making. PEPCO and Mayco approved our eight district operating model in mid-2007 and in 2008 the restructuring of our operations and the establishment of the eight District Offices was undertaken.

Furthermore, specific levels of authority and delegations of decision-making powers are set out in the Council’s System of Delegations, that is amended and updated from time to time. There are specific delegations applicable to the relevant officials, as well as to PEPCO and SPELUM. In terms of the procedures that govern the delegation of authority, any function may only be sub-delegated once. For this reason, the Director of PBDM has received certain delegations in respect of land use and building development decision-making directly from Council, in order that a sub-delegation can be granted to the relevant District staff to legally and administratively enable decentralised decision-making in terms of the eight district model.

The reason for this arrangement is quite simply that it is considered the best model by means of which some 25,000 building development applications and some 8,000 land use management applications can be processed in an effective and efficient manner on an annual basis. With an operation of this magnitude, there is no way that a centralised management system and structure can be used.

The reason I sketch this operational context to you is to make the point that the officials in PBDM have delegated decision-making powers that mean that I (as the Executive Director) cannot simply overrule or change a decision that has been made by a District official. By law (and administratively), each person or political structure that has been entrusted with delegated decision-making powers is required to apply his/her mind to all the relevant facts, policies and statutory requirements in respect of each and every decision taken. In the case where a delegated official takes a decision, he/she makes that decision on behalf of the City and therefore is legally and administratively accountable for the decision. Accordingly, as the Executive Director, I cannot randomly intervene in any individual application – each application must complete its full statutory and decision-making cycle within the framework of the City’s decision-making structures and the System of Delegations. As you well know, the operational processes and systems also provide for rights of appeal (for applicants and objectors) in terms of the relevant legislation. Moreover, there are also rights of legal review in terms of the applicable legislation.

In addition to the foregoing, and in the interest of fostering good communication and interaction with their community based organisations (CBOs), each District Office is in the process of implementing a communications protocol. In short, the District Management will be having regular engagements with the CBOs in their district. Ossie Gonsalves has already started rolling out his programme in this regard. This approach has been agreed with the Executive Mayor, Mayco member Ald Marian Nieuwoudt and other Mayco members. It was also noted that, for the sake of good order and due process, specific issues or CBO queries will always be addressed with the District management in the first instance and thereafter escalated to the Director and then to myself, if necessary.

If some of my foregoing comments seem a little condescending, please accept that this is not in any way intended – I have deemed it to be an essential part of my response in order to sketch the organizational context to the matter at hand.

I turn now to comment on The Crystal Development, in terms of the issues raised in your recent e-mails addressed to me. You have specifically asked that I focus my response on the western retaining wall, which you contend has not been built according to the approved building plan.

I have reviewed the original building plan application (Plan 1827/2008, approved on 3 July 2008), as well as the rider plan application (Plan 748/2009, approved on 31 March 2010) with Ossie Gonsalves and Marius Lourens, as well as various technical reports and assessments on the relevant building plan file. I have also been on a site inspection.

I have, furthermore, been informed and debriefed on a number of technical reviews of the boundary wall issue, both internally within the Council, as well as with the developer and his representatives, since the site meeting that you attended on 4 June 2010.

Our conclusion from this review is that the wall concerned has been built in accordance with the approved plans and the District Building Inspector has confirmed this. The height of the wall is 2,1m above the natural ground level, being the ground level prior to the commencement of the building work. A contour plan has been used as a reference for this and the heights measured relative to these levels. Lines were painted on the walls to indicate this level. In order to independently verify the accuracy of this, the District Office has called for a Land Surveyor's certificate to confirm that the levels of the soil being re-instated on the road verge is not illegal, but in accordance with the contour plan which was submitted with the approved plans and to verify the previous or existing ground level before the development was undertaken.

I trust that this clarifies the City’s (and my) position with regard to the matters raised by you. We will hold ourselves available to meet with representatives from CBRRA, if you would wish to do so.

Regards

Piet van Zyl

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR : STRATEGY & PLANNING

CITY OF CAPE TOWN

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Dear Mr van Zyl

Your reluctance to get involved in this controversial matter, despite having been copied in on all correspondence over the many months that it has been raging, is noted with the extreme concern that it deserves. It is not only your duty but actually your job as Exec Director of Planning, to rein in the officials of your department who seem hell-bent on allowing a clearly illegal building to be erected in Camps Bay.

Your officials have now issued certificates of occupation whilst an order to comply with approved plans exists for a critical aspect of the building. And please ignore the bleat that you will receive from those officials that this is just a little technical matter. It isn't. There is a boundary wall exceeding 3.5m in places that is hiding an illegal basement - which will render the entire building illegal. Refer to BCO Lourens who confirmed this at a recent meeting with Cllrs Smith and Amira, City officials and the CBRRA.

CBRRA demands an urgent meeting with you to discuss this and bring legality back to your planning approval process. This especially in the light of the latest development which is that CBRRA has reliably learnt that the need to comply with the approved plans has apparantly been put on hold by the City PD and developer.

CBRRA trusts that Cllr Nieuwoudt, who has been copied in on this e-mail, grasps the seriousness of this situation - both legally and politically.

Regards
Chris Willemse
CBRRA:Planning

Your intervention is now critically required.

Subsequent to the above letter being sent, the Council has instructed the Developer to keep the illegal fill in place and create a pavement next to the kerb at the bottom of the fill. At some places, this new pavement is about 500 mm wide!

The Councils attempts to circumvent their own regulations continues unabated, and, in the CBRRA’s opinion, still illegally !

__________________________________________

29 June 2010

To: Piet van Zyl
Cc: Marian Nieuwoudt, Taki Amira, Jean-Pierre Smith, Ossie Gonsalves, Cheryl Walters CBRRA ManCo, Gabriel Fagan, Gavin Van Schalkwyk

Dear Mr van Zyl

Your failure to respond as per your attached undertaking is of grave concern.
CBRRA trusts that your meeting with the GCTCA is not going to be used as an excuse to duck the extremely serious implications of your officials' actions in this specific matter.
CBRRA expects your response by close of business on Wednesday, June 30.
In the alternative, it will be assumed that the legal provisions of the National Building Regulations and Standards Act are not the concern of your department and CBRRA will have to seek recourse with whatever agencies that are prepared to ensure that the law of the land is enforced.

It is noted, with the contempt it deserves, that the developer has provided a notional "sidewalk" of less than half a metre wide and now has an impossibly banked section of earth, that will not withstand the elements, concealing the illegally built boundary retaining walls. All of the above are illegal and in any event, not as per the approved plan. Which officials have sanctioned this clear violation of the law, or are, at least, failing to enforce the law? The community demands an answer.

Regards

Chris Willemse
Chair: CBRRA Planning

__________________________________________

23 June 2010

To: Piet van Zyl
Cc: Marian Nieuwoudt, Taki Amira, Jean-Pierre Smith, Ossie Gonsalves, Cheryl Walters CBRRA ManCo, Gabriel Fagan, Gavin Van Schalkwyk

Dear Mr van Zyl

Thank you for the response.

If CBRRA may respectfully guide your attention, then it is to the fact that the western retaining wall simply has not been built according to the approved plan - by over 2m in height in places. The illegal fill on the sidewalk requires no further consideration - it must just be removed.
Even Ossie Gonsalves, in a long telephonic discussion on Friday afternoon, had to concede this point. Apparently, the developer will only remove the illegal sidewalk fill if the PD guarantees that this will end the matter and that all other illegalities can remain. The fact that the PD seem to be intent on considering this option is quite startling to this community.

As CBRRA has always contended, there is much to investigate in this flawed planning approval - but if the developer is not even forced to comply with the approved plans, then it is a criminal investigation that is required.

CBRRA awaits your response with interest.

Regards

Chris Willemse
Chair:CBRRA Planning

__________________________________________

20 June 2010

From: Piet van Zyl
Date: 21 June 2010 7:35:43 AM
To: Chris Willemse
Cc: Marian Nieuwoudt, Taki Amira, Jean-Pierre Smith, Ossie Gonsalves, Cheryl Walters, CBRRRA Manco, Gabriel Fagan, Gavin Van Schalkwyk
Subject: The Crystal, Woodford Ave, Camps Bay

Dear Mr Willemse

Your subjoined e-mail refers. I am still in the process of investigating the matter and will revert to you with my response during the course of this week.

Regards

Piet van Zyl
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR : STRATEGY & PLANNING
CITY OF CAPE TOWN

__________________________________________

13 June 2010

To Piet.VanZyl@capetown.gov.za
cc: Ossie Gonsalves, Demetri Amira, Jean-Pierre Smith, lCBRRA ManCo, Marian Nieuwoudt, Gavin van Schalkwyk, Gabriel Fagan

Subject: The Crystal, Woodford Ave, Camps Bay

Dear Mr van Zyl

Your reluctance to get involved in this controversial matter, despite having been copied in on all correspondence over the many months that it has been raging, is noted with the extreme concern that it deserves.

It is not only your duty but actually your job as Exec Director of Planning, to rein in the officials of your department who seem hell-bent on allowing a clearly illegal building to be erected in Camps Bay.

Your officials have now issued certificates of occupation whilst an order to comply with approved plans exists for a critical aspect of the building. And please ignore the bleat that you will receive from those officials that this is just a little technical matter. It isn't. There is a boundary wall exceeding 3.5m in places that is hiding an illegal basement - which will render the entire building illegal. Refer to BCO Lourens who confirmed this at a recent meeting with Cllrs Smith and Amira, City officials and the CBRRA.

CBRRA demands an urgent meeting with you to discuss this and bring legality back to your planning approval process. This especially in the light of the latest development which is that CBRRA has reliably learnt that the need to comply with the approved plans has apparantly been put on hold by the City PD and developer.

CBRRA trusts that Cllr Nieuwoudt, who has been copied in on this e-mail, grasps the seriousness of this situation - both legally and politically.

Regards

Chris Willemse
CBRRA:Planning

__________________________________________

11 June 2010

To Cllr Taki Amira,
Chair : Good Hope Sub-council
cc: Ossie Gonsalvees, Kenny Lewis, Jean-Pierre Smith, Johan de Beer, Chris Willemse, ohn Powell, Keith Angelo Hartnick

Subject: The Crystal Building: Woodford Avenue, Camps Bay

Dear Cllr Amira and Mr Gonsalves,

I inspected the site yesterday (10 June) and can comment as follows:

1. City Parks has not/never been consulted/contacted regarding this development on erf 2352 as per the attached

2. The embankments along Medburn Road and Woodford Avenue are extremely steep (I estimate that they are 1:1,5) and establishment of vegetation on them is going to be problematic as irrigation will run-off and cause erosion

3. The area on the corner is relatively level and would pose no problem

4. No maintenance agreement/contract with City Parks has been discussed

5. I have seen no landscape plan and cannot comment on detail plant plan if having been provided

Kind regards,
David Curran

District Manager: Operations - Northern District
Tel. 021 550 7617 (Office)
Cell. 084 629 6965
Fax. 021 550 1063

PS – I apologies for the late response and the new mail. My system crashed and I have lost ALL info between 1 June and 7 June

__________________________________________

To Cllr Taki Amira, JP Smith
Chair : Good Hope Sub-council
City of Cape Town
cc: CBRRA ManCo, mayor.mayor@capetown.gov.za, Marga Haywood, Jean-Pierre Smith, Belinda Walker, Marius Coetsee, Gabriel Fagan, Piet van Zyl, Ossie Gonsalves

6 June 2010

Hi JP & Taki

A special thanks to JP for arranging Friday's meeting at short notice and to Taki for making the time.

CBRRA confirms that the Planning Dept (PD) will instruct the developer to remove the fill along the Medburn Rd sidewalk in compliance with the approved plan, on Monday morning.
Further, the developer must also bring the height of the boundary wall in compliance with the approved plan viz 2.1m above the sidewalk.

CBRRA appreciates the clarity with which you dealt with these deviations from the approved plans. Also that the senior Roads Branch officials, Kenny Lewis and Johan de Beer, confirmed that they had not personally seen the plans prior to the meeting and would not have approved the sidewalk fill in any event.

What remains of concern is that, as the BCO Marius Lourens so eloquently pointed out to the meeting, without the sidewalk fill, "you are dealing with a non-compliant building"
Although Ossie Gonsalves was confident that "there is a loop-hole in the system" that will allow the wall to be raised (purportedly to allow a balustrade - a hollow sham given that the steepness of the fill behind this wall makes the area inaccessible to people), two immediate problems present themselves:
The "balustrade" section of this wall may not be filled against, meaning that the retained earth embankment behind this must be lowered.
A considerable length of the boundary wall is 2.2m ABOVE the sidewalk fill of 1.6m. In other words, the actual height of the exposed wall will be about 3.8m !! This is not a few millimetres as the PD will have you believe.
By lowering the wall and fill to comply with the approved plan, the above ground basement that has been so brazenly hidden behind illegal structures will see daylight again. Which is clearly what concerned the BCO.

As stated in the meeting - this clear attempt to evade the Scheme will impact on the actual building itself, whether by rendering the height of the building illegal or partially removing the basement parking and causing non-compliance in that aspect.

As has occurred in the past with this development, the PD will no doubt simply issue occupation certificates to bolster the (now precarious) position of the developer that they have chosen to ally themselves with. The CBRRA is relying on the political will of the City to not allow this travesty of justice. It is common cause that buildings must conform with the planning approval granted before such certificates may be issued. The issue of the filled sidewalks and the extremely prejudicial consequences thereof to the entire project must be resolved first. Clearly, if even by building in conformance with the approved plans, compliance with the Scheme cannot be achieved, then new rider plans must be called for and any further work on this development ceased, until such time as a legal situation can be obtained. Otherwise, demolition must be ordered.

Cheers

Chris Willemse

CBBRA Planning (Chair)

__________________________________________

24 May 2010

To Cllr Taki Amira,
Chair : Good Hope Sub-council
City of Cape Town
cc: CBRRA ManCo, mayor.mayor@capetown.gov.za, Marga Haywood, Jean-Pierre Smith, Belinda Walker, Marius Coetsee, Gabriel Fagan

Taki

Thanks to you and Marius for the time afforded CBRRA this morning.　

The points raised at the meeting are noted here, with some per orbiter comments:　

1. It was agreed that the illegal manipulation of the sidewalk levels along the Medburn Rd must be removed and the sidewalk returned to the original condition that allows pedestrian traffic. The approved plan shows a 1.5m grassed walking surface, so it is quite incredible that the Planning Dept (PD) didn't insist that it be built correctly. Of course, the real truth is that if the (up to) 2m of fill is removed from the public sidewalk, the illegal height of the boundary retaining wall will be revealed. The plans should not have been approved on this aspect alone. It follows then that the levels behind the boundary wall will also have to be reduced to comply with the Zoning Scheme, which will ultimately result in the actual 3 habitable storeys not complying with the s98 height restriction. Or else, the contentious basement will have to be abandoned to allow for stepped earth platforms to achieve the required level around the building. And then the development will not have enough parking to make it legal. The sidewalk manipulation is along the entire length of the boundary retaining wall other than at the pedestrian entrance.

2. The parking area retaining wall is approximately 5m in height. As it defines the difference in height between between two levels it is subject to the provisions of s11 herequoted from the Zoning Scheme:

THE INSERTION OF THE FOLLOWING NEW SECTION AFTER CHAPTER I, SECTION 10 – 18 MAY 2007:

Section 11: Raising of ground level

Any unsupported earth banks, soil retaining structure, column, suspended floor or any other device which exceeds 2,1m in height or enables a ground floor or platform to be more than 2,1m above existing ground level shall require the Council’s consent. Where a series or number of such structures or devices are used to achieve a raised floor or platform, these shall require the Council’s consent where the cumulative height of these structures or devices exceeds 2,1m when measured horizontally over a distance of 3 m or less.

Clearly, this wall is totally illegal. Before the PD aver that the levels were substantially reduced to accommodate the parking area, the CBRRA has photographic evidence of the original ground levels, which clearly show very little excavation to the parking area.

3. With reference to s11 above, it was quite clear from the inspection of the Medburn Rd section of the boundary wall that there are two defining structures that assist in retaining earth (or creating a platform over the basement), being the boundary wall and the basement wall. These two walls are about 1.5m apart and therefore do not comply with the Scheme. This is repeated at other parts of the boundary wall.

4. The PD's dismissal of any of the features (2 swimming pools, a pond, reinforced concrete recreation terraces, massively wide entrance staircases, paved parking area for about twenty vehicles and the sub-station) constituting "built upon" in terms of the Title Deed conditions is simply disingenuous. For the PD to further add that they were unsure why the substation was there, after approving the plans depicting it, merely paints them in their true colours.

5. Ossie Gonsalves conceded that there should be at least 1m of earth fill over the basement in order for it to comply as "underground". He further had to concede that the approved plans show less than this. And the actual as built situation is in the region of 500mm. Another complete mockery of the regulations by the PD.

As it is clear that the PD are determined to preserve their approval of this building no matter how many irregularities and illegalities are pointed out to them (and have been over the past 18 months), it is up to the elected representatives of the people of Camps Bay (and, in fact, Cape Town) to stop the tail wagging the dog at City Hall. The CBRRA demands that the politicians involved in planning matters in the Good Hope SC take immediate action to rectify this situation as the PD will simply drag their feet as they have done for almost 2 years in the vain hope that their nefarious handling of this application gets forgotten and a favoured developer makes a huge profit at the expense of the community. The PD have been trying to assist the developer with this illegal development for almost 2 years now. There is a long history of the PD saying that the plans comply and then it is established that they don't. This is either unacceptable incompetence or favouritism that must be investigated.

The DA have done enough talking about the ineptitude and possible corruption on the part of other parties. It is now time that they sort out the PD mess that is under their control.

Cheers

Chris Willemse

CBBRA Planning (Chair)

__________________________________________

10 May 2010

To: Cllr Taki Amira
Chair : Good Hope Sub-council
City of Cape Town
cc: Ossie Gonsalves, Gavin van Schalkwyk, Gabriel Fagan, CBRRA ManCo

Hi Taki

Thanks for the response and, again, we wish you a speedy and full recovery.

The Crystal situation is extremely urgent.

As you will recall, Ossie and his team were adamant that the plans were in order on the 11 Feb of this year. To this end, they convinced you of this patent untruth and were hell-bent on approving them "the next day". But even the PD should have realised that those plans did not closely comply with the Zoning Scheme, let alone the restrictive title deed conditions. There exists a deep concern at the degree of premeditation in the actions of the officials concerned.

The CBRRA can hardly be expected to rely on these self same officials to regulate the situation now. The CBRRA anticipated the outcome of this matter weeks ago when it stated that it was clear that the PD would simply approve the plans without any reference to the affected parties and then sit tight and dare the community, in the words of Fiona Ogle (at our Feb meeting), to "sue us (the City) if you like".

The CBRRA requests that you meet with it on the site at your earliest convenience (preferably by Wed) to see first hand how the public sidewalk has been unconstitutionally expropriated by the City for the benefit of the developer. This will be one of a few eye-openers for you.

The CBRRA would suggest that this is not only a planning issue but has also become a political one and requires the input of our elected representatives.

Regards

Chris Willemse
CBRRA Planning (Chair)

__________________________________________

09 May 2010

To: Chris Willemse
CBRRA Planning (Chair)
CC: Ossie Gonsalves; CBRRA ManCo, Gavin van Schalkwyk, Gabriel Fagan

Good morning Chris,

A belated thank you to you and your committee for the good wishes and book during my recent illness, which laid me low with poor eye sight to the extent I had difficulty in reading until the end of the month of April. I then had to play catch up on accumulated work.

Therefore I have not ignored the concerns of CBBRA however as they were very technical in nature and had noted that various officials were included in the address groups, I had hoped that someone from Plans or Building Inspectorate would pick up the thread and respond to the queries.

As you have now directed the enquiry direct to me I will make a point of following this up and get advice from officials as to what is going on.

I had up and until receipt of your letter been assured that all alterations to the buildings were in accordance with approved amended plans. As there re now further issues give me sometime to look into it and communicate with you further on this issue.

Best wishes

Taki Amira
Councillor - City of Cape Town
Chairperson Good Hope Sub Council (16)
Wards 54, 74 & 77

__________________________________________

05 May 2010

To: Cllr Taki Amira; CBRRA ManCo
Chair : Good Hope Sub-council
City of Cape Town
cc: Gavin van Schalkwyk

Dear Cllr Amira

Despite the huge effort by the CBRRA to meaningfully address the numerous problems surrounding the Crystal development in Woodford Ave, Camps Bay, it is understood that the rider plans for this illegal development have been approved by the City, without further reference to the affected parties.

To date, CBRRA has only been informed of this unofficially.

The Mayor, the Executive Director of Planning and your office have studiously refused to answer our many letters directed in this regard.

Clearly, the Planning Department (which also refuses to engage with the affected community) holds absolute power in the City and is unaccountable to the political powers that be and the people it purports to serve.

CBRRA requests that it be allowed to meet with the officials who approved the plans, with CBRRA’S planning expert, to determine how such approval was granted. This must be done as a matter of urgency.

CBRRA also wishes to discuss the circumstances surrounding this application and the manner in which it was dealt with by the City, with the Good Hope Sub-council, the Mayor and the Executive Director of Planning.

Regards

Chris Willemse
CBRRA Planning (Chair)

__________________________________________

11 April 2010
To: Gavin Van Schalkwyk
Cc: Piet Van Zyl, Taki Amira, Gregory September, Ossie Gonsalves, Marga Haywood, Jean-Pierre Smith, Dan Plato
Subject: The Crystal Development, Camps Bay

Hi Gavin

Thank you for your response - none has been received from the planning dept (PD) or any other of the addressees on CBRRA's letter of March 28th. In the absence of Cllr Amira, to whom we wish a speedy recovery, please could this matter be referred to Piet van Zyl as a matter of extreme urgency.

CBRRA yet again raises the issue of the complete lack of tranparency in the PD. Their assessment of these plans has been conducted away from public scrutiny and, to date, extremely unprofessionally and in a totally prejudicial manner to the community.

Ossie Gonsalves seems to have forgotten that, at our last meeting on 11 Feb 2010, he was adamant that the (then) plans were fully compliant and that approval would be granted the next day. Fortunately, Cllr Amira prevailed upon the PD and allowed the CBRRA to view the plans. Even at first glance, it was clear that the plans did not comply with many applicable laws. So forgive the CBRRA if it continues to contend that the latest plans cannot possibly comply or that the PD have "fully addressed" all the issues surrounding this patently illegal building operation.

Besides the obvious clear violation of the "built upon" restriction, and the five in lieu of three “floors”, CBRRA finds it beyond belief that the developer is creating a sloping fill on a public pavement on the western boundary sidewalk in an effort to hide illegal wall heights. It needs to be confirmed that the City are aware of this and that an immediate order to restore the sidewalk is issued tho the developer, with the obvious implications for the heights of walls on the boundary.

The basement roof slab on the northern portion of the site is approximately 650mm lower than the finished floor level of the ground floor of the building - which means that only about 500mm of soil can be placed on that roof. It is a preposterous contention that by dumping a bit of fill on a roof slab that it becomes "underground", especially when it is clearly higher than the existing finished ground level as defined in the Zoning Scheme. The original plans, and the the amended plans CBRRA viewed in Feb, indicated a 1m fill between the basement and the underside of the ground floor of the building.

There are many other problems regarding this development, which are well-documented, none of which have been satisfactorily answered by the PD's officials and its legal advisers.

In any event, a considerable amount of demolition of illegal work (built whilst the PD looked on) has occurred since the last meeting without CBBRA being informed of the nature thereof.

After these alterations, CBRRA is still of the opinion that the basement is illegal, as is possibly the new structure built in the building setback area on the south west corner of the site adjacent to Woodford Ave.

To summarise CBRRA's concerns:

The current development

exceeds the maximum built-upon area of 25% stipulated in the Title Deed conditions
has 5 floors instead of the 3 floors as permitted by the Title Deed conditions
exceeds the height restriction as per s98 of the Zoning Scheme
relies on a complete mis-application of Amendment 11 of the Zoning Scheme in that ground levels raised by 2.1m must continue horizontally for 3m before any further raising of the ground may occur.
contains a basement that is clearly out of the ground
is placing huge loads of fill on the public pavement to conceal the height of the boundary walls. This is not only illegal from a planning point of view but forces pedestrians to walk on a busy roadway.
is being built without proper planning authority in flagrant disregard of the law (A25 of the NBR) which states that no building operation may proceed without such authority. The authority granted by the original approved plans has long been exceeded.
is clearly in violation of s7 of the NBR

CBRRA requests an urgent meeting with Mr van Zyl prior to plan approval in order that it may again inspect the latest amendments to the rider plans to verify their legality. CBRRA wishes also to view the revised plans for the relocation of the main entrance to the basement and the rubbish bin enclosure.

CBRRA also request the attendance of Cllrs Amira (if available), Smith and Haywood and Mr Gonsalves at this meeting.

CBRRA will also contact the Mayor Plato, as he did express a personal interest in such matters during his roadshow.

Regards

Chris Willemse
CBRRA Planning (Chair)

__________________________________________

From: Gavin Van Schalkwyk
To: Chris Willemse Cc: Gregory September; Jaco Theron; Ossie Gonsalves
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 5:36 PM
Subject: FW: The Crystal Development, Camps Bay

Dear Mr Willemse

I am not sure whether you have received feedback to your attached letter to Councillor Amira. Councillor Amira has been hospitalised and may not have been in a position to forward a response to you.

Please see communication between the District Manager to Cllr Amira.

Yours truly

Gavin van Schalkwyk

Manager: Support Services
Strategic Support
Office of The Executive Director
Strategy and Planning

__________________________________________

From: Ossie Gonsalves
Sent: 29 March 2010 09:20 AM
To: Taki Amira; Stephen John Wilkinson; Marius Lourens; Fiona Ogle
Cc: Jaco Theron; Jean-Pierre Smith; Marga Haywood; Gregory September; Jaco Theron
Subject: RE: The Crystal Development, Camps Bay

Dear Clr Amira,

Since we last met, the rider building plans for The Crystal needed to be amended a few times due to our (and the CBRRA's) concerns regarding the basement encroaching above ground the and boundary wall being too high. This has involved a series of meetings with the architects/developer on site and in our office in order that all these concerns, as also raised in the attached letter from te CBRRA, are fully addressed.

These amendments, which involve the demolition of certain boundary walls and parts of the basement and the relocation of the entrance, are in progress on site.

The further amended rider plans were returned last week and a report is in the process of being compiled by Marius Lourens, the City's BCO, in order that the plan is recommended for approval.

The rider plan will therefore be approved this week, if all the issues raised have been addressed and the plan is deemed to be in accordance with all applicable laws.

I have asked the building inspector, Stephen Wilkinson to investigate the issue of working on Sundays and the loose sand blowing onto the neighbour's property, which he will be following up today on.

I will also be seeking advice from our Legal Advisor on responding to the attached letter, especially with regard to the press releases involving the 'last two' court cases referred to in the letter.

Regards

Ossie Gonsalves
District Manager - Table Bay District
Planning & Building Development Management

__________________________________________

26 MARCH 2010

Cllr. D. Amira (Chair : Good Hope Subcouncil, City of Cape Town)

Dear Cllr Amira,

THE CRYSTAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE HARRISON CASE, CAMPS BAY

It is now many weeks since we met with you in respect of The Crystal. The CBRRA responded immediately to the purported compliance of the plans shown to it at the meeting of 12th February 2010 (the following day). It is clear that the City's Planning Dept (PD) must agree with our assessment that the plans still do not comply with all applicable law, otherwise it would have approved the plans as it said it would on the 15th February 2010. The CBRRA notes your referring the answering of our observations in respect of The Crystal plans to Ossie Gonsalves, of the PD.

No response has been forthcoming from him and the building continues to rush towards completion. This building cannot be certified as being complete by the City until all illegal work has been rectified and you have passed the plans.

Since that date we are told of City officials’ visits to site, the erection of a (further illegal?) structure on the southeast corner in the setback line (for unknown use), the reduction in heights of completed isolated concrete screen walls and slabs on the western façade (so something must have been illegally constructed).

CBRRA finds this ongoing lack of transparency on the City’s behalf unacceptable and inexplicable. Yet again CBRRA is not being communicated with and planning decisions are being made and acted upon behind closed doors. CBRRA is also informed that there will be filling along the front of the isolated structural concrete walls all along the western Woodford Road boundary to somehow “legitimise” these walls and the basement.

While the City may consider this an acceptable operation to a height not exceeding 2.1m vertically, CBRRA hereby respectfully points out that this intended filling cannot be placed on Council property over the present unmade Council-owned pavement width adjacent to the road. This is currently being done and must be stopped.

While the cutting down of the isolated screen walls on the western elevation is correct and is to be welcomed, CBRRA again points out that the act of this height reduction simply exposes the illegal façade of the basement structure behind. The PD is of the opinion that the filling behind the reduced isolated screen walls can be placed with a sloping top surface up to the roof of the illegal basement behind, thus legalising it.

This is completely incorrect, as the definition of the critical amendments will show.

The 3m distance between the 2.1m level adjustments MUST be horizontal and not raking as the PD contends. Your Environmental Department disagrees with the PD in this respect.

This is where the City has got itself into an impossible dilemma in this matter and CBRRA would like to be told what is going to be done to properly legalise the structure and why the Contractor has been allowed to practically complete the whole project in the year since the rider plans were submitted and not passed to this date.

The CBRRA refers you to National Building Regulations A25 and once again requests that the City act within the legal parameters of the law.

You reported at your recent press release meeting that CBRRA has lost the Supreme Court of Appeal case in the Harrison matter.

Whereas this may be true, we bring the following points to your attention:

• The last two court cases in this matter have both completely ignored the whole issue on which the Cape High Court ruled in our favour in the first Harrison case in respect of from where heights of Camps Bay buildings must be measured (i.e. existing finished ground level – i.e. before raising. So, in effect, CBRRA did not “lose” this contention and this cannot be used as an argument by the City in the Crystal project or be used in future for now. (See below).

• The subsequent critical amendments redefinition of “ground Level”, to which your Senior Counsel refers, resulted directly from this first Harrison court case in which Ms Acting Justice Meer supported CBRRA’s definition of ground level as above, which definition currently is still valid to this day.

• It is important for the City to be aware that the CBRRA has submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court in the Harrison matter, appealing against the last judgement and has issued a press release as set out below.

• In the meantime, the inexplicable lack of communication from your PD officials in respect of the unpassed plans for the Crystal continues to mystify us and we again request another meeting to clarify matters on this project which, in CBRRA’s opinion, continues to be entirely illegal consequent upon the basement having been raised and “forced “ by isolated screen retaining walls exceeding legal heights, the structure having five not three floors contrary to the title deeds, the report of John Van Der Spuy’s proving that it has derogated the values of adjacent affected properties, the west facades being in excess of 10metres above natural existing ground level and the contravention of the “built upon” title deed restriction.

• The CBRRA hereby registers its disagreement with the legal responses produced by the City in response to Adv D. Irish’s and Mr J. van der Spuys’s opinions.

• It is obvious that we are not getting the required responses from the PD and now request that we meet with you and the senior officials of the PD in order to achieve progress in this matter and attempt to finalise this regrettable state of affairs.

Lastly, the Crystal Developers are working loudly on demolition and concreting work on Sundays, which is illegal regardless of the work being done. They are also not keeping the sand on their site from blowing over adjacent properties which is highly inconveniencing adjacent affected neighbours.

Please instruct your Building Inspector to inform them of the above illegality and forbid them from so doing in the future and instruct them to control the movement of sand.

Chris Willemse
Chairperson: Planning Subcommittee
CBRRA
Cell 0836536363
Email cwpm@intekom.co.za

cc Mayor D. Plato, Cllrs. M. Haywood, J-P. Smith, Messrs. P. van Zyl, J Theron, O. Gonzalves, G.Setember and Ms F. Ogle

Attached:
CBRRA PRESS RELEASE 22 March 2010 Supreme Court of Appeal Ruling in the Harrison Matter 

AGM 2010

2010-05-24T07:35:00.000+02:00

CBRRA will be holding their

Annual General Meeting (AGM) on

19 August 2010

At 19h30

at the Ballroom, Rotunda, The Bay Hotel, Camps Bay

Everyone is welcome to attend.

An agenda will be posted here shortly.

For enquiries, please email campsbayratepayers@gmail.com