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

Friday, 24 March 2023

Generator Noise Legislation


Western Cape Noise Control Regulations PN200/2013Western Cape Noise Control Regulations PN200/2013

Regulation 2

Prohibition of disturbing noise

A person may not
(a) cause a disturbing noise; or
(b) allow a disturbing noise to be caused by any person, animal, machine, device,
apparatus, vehicle, vessel or model aircraft, or any combination thereof.

Regulation 5

Noise from machinery in residential areas

A person may not use a pool pump, irrigation pump, refrigeration unit, or any heating,
ventilation or air conditioning equipment, or any similar device, in a residential area if the
noise on the property projection plane exceeds 50 dBA or exceeds the residual noise level by
more than 5 dBA, except if authorised by the local authority or in an emergency.

Regulation 3

Finally, any noise source can also be assessed in terms of whether it may be a valid noise


• standby generators are a large contributor to noise pollution, especially in
densely populated areas.
• generator engines create noise from both their mechanical and combustion
forces These sounds range from 100 121 dB depending on the size of the
engine Cooling fans are also a big source of noise pollution They produce
noise by moving air at high speeds as it passes through the engine and
radiator Cooling fans produce noise at levels varying from 100 105 dB at a
distance of one meter Alternators cause noise from the friction of the cooling
air and the brushes oscillating between 80 90 dBA Inductive noise is caused
by fluctuations in the current of the winding of the alternator that causes a
mechanical noise that varies between 80 90 dB at a meter Without an
exhaust muffler, engine exhaust noise ranges from 120 130 dBA or more, but
can be reduced by at least 15 dBA with a standard muffler Mechanical
vibrations of the different parts and structural components will also add to the
radiating sounds.

Quieter options

• Generators with a spin speed of 1500 rpm are quieter than those with a 3000 rpm spin
speed. (Diesel/petrol)
• Water cooled engines are quieter than air cooled gens.
• Newer technology generators are quieter and more fuel efficient. Newer generators also
focus more on smooth running engines and vibration reduction. Inverter type generators
are an example.


Dampers, rubber, and spring mounts are all different types of anti vibration mounts
These devices basically insert rubber or springs underneath your equipment to absorb
the vibration waves and not transfer them to the harder concrete base Dampers can be
made out of neoprene or rubber and can be made as thick or as thin as needed in order
to dampen the specific amount of vibration created by your machine.

Acoustic Barriers or Insulation

Adding an acoustic barrier or insulation to the area around your generator can reduce
sound levels by up to 10 dB Acoustic barriers include concrete walls and generator
canopies You can also install sound absorbing materials like acoustic wall tiles or panels
Of course with any enclosure there is a risk of fumes and exhaust building up and
causing health concerns for any humans or animals in the immediate area.

Sound Attenuation Housing

Sound attenuation housings are large enclosures built of steel. They use
perforated sheet metal with high density rock called splitter inside. The
perforated sheet metal enables large amounts of air to pass through it while
absorbing the sound and reducing the sound wavelengths. Attenuators are
built depending on the size of your generator and your particular sound
attenuation needs.

Mufflers and Silencers

• Most generators are equipped with an exhaust muffler There are two main
types of mufflers including chamber type and spiral type Chamber type
mufflers are more effective while spiral type mufflers are more compact
• There are three types of silencers including reactive, absorptive, and
combination Reactive silencers use three chambers to help trap noise and
work best for low to mid range sounds Absorptive silencers use fiberglass
insulation to absorb high frequency sounds Combination silencers combine
designs of reactive and absorptive silencers to muffle a wide range of sounds
The only downfall to silencers is that they can possibly restrict airflow to some
degree and can impact performance Silencers are broken down into eight
categories of noise dampening.

Sound proofing mufflers

• Various options available
• Some more costly than others
• Have to provide a user with a reasonable time to rectify the transgression

Insulation, baffles and anti-vibration devices

Increase the Distance

Moving your generator farther from areas populated by people seems like a
no brainer to help reduce noise Doubling the distance between you and your
generator can lead to a reduction in noise by about 6 dB Moving the
generator farther away allows the wavelengths to disperse at a greater
distance, which decreases acoustic intensity, reducing the noise significantly.


Before purchasing a generator, consider the pollution factor and budget for
noise abatement as well as fume elimination. This could well be a significant
portion of your total expense.

DOWNLOAD the CCT Generator Noise document 

Wednesday, 22 February 2023

CBCRA replies to Greg Scott regarding the Beachfront Hotel

Dear Camps Bay and Clifton Residents

The rather arrogant letter from Greg Scott of Scott Partners, regarding the proposed new beachfront hotel, begs a rebuttal.

However, the CBCRA will not stoop to the personal insult style that Mr Scott has employed in his denunciation of the CBCRA and its goals. 

So, let’s consider the facts:

  • The special regulations for Camps Bay are 3 storeys and 10m façade height: That is the legal situation and Mr Scott is surprisingly quiet on why he needs to design a building that is 5 storeys and almost 15m high in places. He claims that his plans comply – but that is only because the City has granted massive departures to allow a building that is almost 160% larger than allowed by the special planning conditions pertaining to Camps Bay.

  • It is claimed by Mr Scott that the CBCRA and the 94 individual residents who opposed the scheme “lost” against this development 3 times. Interesting point, as there was only a Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) decision and an appeal to the Mayor: That’s two. In any event, MPT decisions are always in favour of development and the Mayor partially upheld the community’s appeal (regarding the parking requirements). These are the actual facts.

  • As a footnote to the above issue: The developer applied for a departure to provide only 58 parking bays in lieu of the required 120, which the MPT, of course, granted. On appeal by the community, the Mayor upheld this point and refused to grant the departure. Very conveniently for the developer, the City subsequently changed the regulations regarding the parking requirement to require only 50 bays! More on this when the application is launched.

  • More to the point, the CBCRA understands that the City will, ultimately, always support and approve any type of development that increases the rates base for that property and help developers amass large profits – regardless of the affect on the community or the values of adjoining properties. The community’s opportunity for a fair hearing only comes when the matter is taken to court. That is where the CBCRA has been totally successful in over 50 cases over the years.

  • Mr Scott is invited to visit the closed-down site at 22 Sedgemoor Rd and reflect on the following:
    The developer had a Land Use Management approval and a City-approved plan to which he was building – but it was gained by the usual preferential treatment afforded to developers by the City. The CBCRA and many neighbours took this matter to the High Court and won the case. This highlights two important issues:
    • City-approved plans are not very reliable when considered in open court.
    • The CBCRA is not some vigilante group, acting out of personal prejudice and on a crusade, as Mr Scott would have you believe, but a volunteer group which acts with the community in the best interests of Camps Bay and seeks to enforce the rule of law. By his own admission, Mr Scott’s plans are not compliant with the regulatory requirements for Camps Bay.

  • It is further suggested that the CBCRA should allow democratically and qualified persons decide the future built form of our suburb. Maybe Mr Scott is unaware that no locally elected person may be involved in planning matters and as for the appointed officials, who simply ignore the rights of ratepayers, little can be said. In any event, let the residents of Camps Bay have a say in matters relating to their suburb, or is that too democratic for the commercial interests that seek to control our future?

  • It is useful that Mr Scott has attached his “architect’s impression” perspectives to his missive. Clearly, with his commercial interest in this development, it will be to calm the nerves of anxious residents. He has won over a few – but not the many who understand how these things work. In his first graphic impression, on p1, he indicates a front elevation of the building, with an outline of the adjoining Tigers Milk building. The CBCRA rendition, of which he complains so bitterly, shows the very same relationship between the two buildings. However, he does not show the hotel as extending behind Tigers Milk, as it is on his approved plans. The rest of his perspectives do not appear to help his case much as they speak to a massive block that attempts to utilise every square millimetre available – and the extra 60 – 70% non-compliant bulk offered by the City. 

  • If one has regard to his first graphic impression (p1) and Image 1 (p3), then it is clear who is trying to mislead. The former shows the mountain just visible above the Tigers Milk building and clearly lower than the height of the new building. Given that the new building will extend behind Tigers Milk, then it is obvious to any neutral observer that the view of the mountain will be blocked!

  • Image 1, and the following images, then, is a clear attempt to deceive – or today’s students might have to re-learn the height of Table Mountain!

  • The CBCRA presented a peer review of the developer’s Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to the MPT. Although it was a very detailed report, which raised serious concerns about the assumptions and conclusions of the TIA, the MPT simply didn’t even read it!

  • This site offers a wonderful opportunity to create a building that is appropriate to the area and could be iconic to the beachfront. However, it appears as if commercial concerns have outweighed any such sensibility.

  • It is claimed that the new building is no higher than the old Place on the Bay (POB). Given that the POB had an illegal fourth floor (and therefore height), this is an interesting departure point: Relying on previous illegal work to justify non-conformity with the current regulations of 3 storeys and 10m height restrictions. Further, he has “overcome” the 10m restriction on the Fairways side of the building by introducing a 1m “step” in the façade and thereby claiming 2 facades, totalling almost 15m in height (ie each “façade” not higher than 10m). There is no provision in the regulations to split a façade in this manner, just a ploy by the City planners to assist with a non-compliant building application. In any event, it will present as a 15m building from the street, which is obviously unacceptable.

  • On a lighter note, the CBCRA does agree with Mr Scott that there was little aesthetic value in the previous POB building – but having demolished it, why erect another monument to commercial greed?

  • No application or approval in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) was produced in this application. Any work that involves the excavation of more than 5m3 of soil, within 100m of the high-water mark, requires environmental authorisation. 

  • For the sake of brevity, we will not further labour this matter and trust that the residents of Camps Bay will see through the veil of deception that cloaks this development – and fully support the neighbours and CBCRA in stopping it in its present form.

Best regards

Chris Willemse
Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers Association
Tel: 083 653 6363

Please refer to Greg Scott's letter and the previous CBCRA letter below:

Please also refer to the historic data on this matter as recorded on our blog:

Beachfront Hotel: Greg Scott replies to the CBCRA's letter


Herewith the link for the PDF:

Tuesday, 21 February 2023

Beachfront Hotel - Help prevent the destruction & desecration of the Camps Bay beachfront


The proposed new 101-room hotel on the beachfront has been approved by the City with 5 floors instead of the permitted 3 and a height of almost 15m instead of the permitted 10m! This is a disgrace on the part of the City, which, sadly, routinely approves such inappropriate development.

It also fills the entire site, with no side spaces on the boundaries, and is critically short of parking bays.

The development has no environmental permission and there are many other contraventions which have been established by the Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers Association (CBCRA) and its legal team. 

As happened with the development at 22 Sedgemoor Rd, the developer and City tell us that the planning approval is all in order!

In the Sedgemoor matter, the High Court disagreed and interdicted any further work on the site in December 2021 (14 months ago) and that remains the current status – and will continue so until the developer is prepared to negotiate a solution that is acceptable to the neighbours and the community.

The CBCRA has a proven track record of stopping inappropriate development in Camps Bay for the benefit of all current and future owners of property and residents.

The CBCRA has, over the past few years, repeatedly opposed and appealed the decision-making of the City in this beachfront hotel matter – forcing it into many questionable planning decisions in order to favour the development. The City is notorious for its blind “development at any cost” stance.

The community gave generously toward this fight - and enabled the CBCRA to get to this juncture where every move by the City or developer is recorded and can be placed before a High Court judge for a review of those objectionable decisions. The CBCRA will soon make that application to the High Court to review and set aside the City’s planning decision to approve this monstrous blight on the built environment of one of the most beautiful areas in the world.

We need to stand up against the abuse of power by the City which feeds the greed of developers!

The community is not anti-development but insists that it must be sensitive and sustainable and within the development rules for the area – everything which this development is not!

From the above perspective, it is clear that this insensitive over-bulked monstrosity will even block the view of the mountain from the beach! Note how it towers over the existing Tigers Milk building from the side and the back.

We call on the community to stand together and back the CBCRA and local residents opposing the wholesale destruction of one of the most beautiful and visited beachfronts in the world – both financially and by joining the movement to ensure sensitive and appropriate development along the beachfront.

Please contact to offer your assistance and be included in our mailing address. Together, we can bring some sense back to the development of the beachfront and Camps Bay.

The CBCRA banking details are:

Bank First National Bank
Branch Code 201709
Account No 62550213400
Reference YOUR NAME and Beachfront Hotel

(Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers Association)
Tel: 083 653 6363

Codfather gives Joseph (Community Steward) opportunity

For anyone wondering where our amazing Joseph (Community Steward) has been….

Thank you The Codfather for the incredible opportunity you have given him.
We value the true form of transformation off street… and that anything is indeed possible…when you put your mind to it.
Joseph would love to see more of his regular customers…please support businesses who support our #igniteresponsibly community social upliftment efforts.

Posted by

Monday, 20 February 2023

CCT Property Valuations 2022 - get your objections in now

City of Cape Town GV22 (General Property Valuation 2022) is now open

The General Valuation Roll (GVR) is a document containing the municipal valuations of all the registered properties within the boundaries of the City of Cape Town and is used to calculate the rates that property owners are required to pay. You are able to object to your property valuation during the objection period.

The GVR gives the market value of a property on a certain date. It applies to all properties in Cape Town and is used to calculate the monthly rates that property owners are required to pay for general services such as street lighting, parks, libraries and fire services.

The municipal valuer, is responsible for producing the GVR and is assisted by professional valuers, statistical analysts, data collectors, and support staff.

Together, they collect and review property sales and data that take place around the date of valuation and generate a valuation using the Computer-assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) system.

To ensure fairness, the GVR is verified/externally assured by an independent body – the GV2022 was audited by International Property Tax Institute.

General Valuation Roll for 2022 (GV2022)

  • The 2022 General Valuation Roll (GV2022) was certified on 31 January 2023. 
  • All properties on the GV2022 Roll are representative of market value as at 1 July 2022. 

Property owners are able to submit objections:

  • Electronically via e-Services or email until 30 April 2023 
  • In-person at public inspection and objection venues until 31 March 2023

No late objections will be accepted.

Follow the link below for detailed instructions on how to object your property valuation:

Account locks for properties with objections

Account locks will be inserted for all properties with valid objections. The account lock will prevent debt collection action on the property rates portion of the municipal account while the objection is under investigation.

Account locks will be removed after the objection is finalised, and the account will be recalculated based on the objection decision valuation. 


The Account Lock will allow you to make rates payments on the valuation you believe to be correct while the objection is outstanding, without incurring debt collection action.

Following the update of the objection decision valuation on your municipal account, you will be liable any amounts owing on your municipal account. 

Should the finalised objection result in the City owing you, this will be repaid to you with interest. Should the objection decision result in an increase in your valuation, or the valuation remains the same, all interest calculated on the arrears will become payable.

Supplementary Valuation Roll (SVR)

Properties are currently being selected for valuation in the SV05/GV2018 roll. The SV05/GV2018 Roll will be certified in June 2023.

The City must certify and publish at least one SVR per year.

The SVR contains details of properties that were not included in the last GV Roll, as well as any properties that have been changed.

According to the amended Local Government Municipal Property Rates Act(Act 6 of 2004) , a property is determined to have changed, if it has:

  • been identified as having been previously incorrectly valued;
  • been incorrectly recorded in the last GVR because of a clerical or typing error;
  • been omitted from the valuation roll;
  • been recently added to the municipality;
  • been subdivided or consolidated;
  • changed in category
  • had a building plan signed off;
  • had a significant increase or decrease in market value since the last GVR;

If your property is included in an SVR, the City will post two notices to you.

Notice 1 will be posted immediately after the SV valuation is completed, and will inform you of your right to request a review. You will need to email to obtain the official review form and return the completed form to the same address.

Notice 2 will be posted to you after the SV Roll is certified. This notice will inform you of your right to object, and outline the process for submitting an objection. You can obtain an official form by emailing and must return the completed form to the same address.


The City Valuation Office will value properties for the SV01/GV2022 roll as from 1 July 2023.

Contact us


0860 103 089


Document downloads

How to Search For Your Property on the GV2022 Roll 20/02/2023, Guideline - 791.5 KB

Valuations Tariffs 01/07/2022, Budget annexure,Tariff - 670.1 KB

General and Supplementary Valuations FAQs 20/02/2023, FAQs - 354.2 KB

From City of Cape Town website: