Five jailed for Camps Bay crime spree

A syndicate of robbers who terrorised Camps Bay have been convicted of a host of crimes, including housebreaking, rape and robbery with aggravating circumstances.

In a lengthy judgment handed down by Western Cape High Court Justice James Yekiso, he found the five men – gang leader Luis Momadi, as well as Arnaldo Faife, Rogerio Laice, Sabastine Okele and Thamsanqa Mafuya – guilty of an assortment of charges.

Yekiso took four days to read the 121-page document into record to allow for interpretation for the accused. He finished on Friday.

The five terrorised Camps Bay residents between September 2006 and December 2008 as they carried out a string of robberies.

Momadi was convicted of eight of the 16 charges related to the robberies.

Both Faife and Laice were convicted of seven counts. Okele was found guilty of three charges, and knowingly being in possession of stolen property, while Mafuya was convicted only of being in possession of stolen property.

Their crime spree predominantly took place in a few months in 2008.

According to Yekiso’s judgement, it started in March 2008 when Momadi broke into the home of Camps Bay resident Siegfried Strasser, assaulted him, his wife and another woman and stole a cellphone, jewellery and keys.

On November 2, he returned to the area with Faife and Laice. They robbed the home of a local couple, taking expensive items. Momadi raped the woman.

Just two days later, they broke into the home of Grant Dutton. They stole expensive items such as designer sunglasses, a flat screen TV, iPods and three watches.

The three men robbed two more houses that month, this time bringing Okele along.

They raided the homes of Hans Gunter on November 8, and David and Noleen Knott on November 25, holding them at gunpoint.

When they robbed the Knotts, one of them was alleged to have told Noleen Knott what a “nice bedroom” she had. He asked her to sit next to him on the bed and asked whether she’d “ever been kissed by a black man”.

The men, who stole cellphones, cameras, cash, clothing, whisky and passports, are yet to be sentenced.

Public Meeting: MyCiti Bus Route through Camps Bay

Erf 275 Clifton (Kloof Rd), House Bailes

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

Cc

MEC Anton Bredell

Provincial Government

Western Cape

what about the whales - letter

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...??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cellphone masts on top of agenda

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

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

PORTFOLIO ALLOCATIONS

Chair

Chris Willemse

cnwillemse@gmail.com

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

Planning

Chris Willemse (chair)

cnwillemse@gmail.com

John Powell

poweltalk@icon.co.za

Trudi Groenewald

groensee@new.co.za

Johan Van Papendorp

jvp@ovp.co.za

Brenda Herbert

brenda@herbert.co.za

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

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

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

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

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

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 R300 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

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

18 AUGUST:

Herewith our first set of objections to the draft policy.

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

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: Anonymous

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 Marine Heights and a photo, where you can see the antennas and 2 letters of tenants who moved out.

Regards

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,

Anonymous

3, 4 Letters from Werner Kover and Louis Stoltz

Have Your Say: Converted Zoning Map

CBRRA comment on Appeal Erf 1565, 5 Theresa Ave

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