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 Waste Control for more details about your recycling

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

CCT: Demarcation of Animal Zones on City Nodal Beaches

From: Beverley Schafer
Date: 29 May 2013 10:38:54 AM SAST
To: Vivienne Sasman

Please note that Camps Bay and Glen community have put forward a new proposal which will be tabled at my ward committee on Wed next week.

Yours in serving the community,

Cllr Beverley Schafer
Ward 54 - Atlantic Seaboard
Member of Tourism, Events, Arts & Marketing Portfolio
Cell: 083 598 3676
Fax:  086 588 6217

Facebook |  Twitter  

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

CCT: Invite for Public Participation (City of Cape Town) - Informal Trading Policy & Bylaw

From: Chris Willemse
Date: 28 May 2013
To: Simon Kneel, Dr Mark Vella
Subject: Fwd: Invite for Public Participation (City of Cape Town) - Informal Trading Policy & Bylaw

Hi Simon & Mark

Herewith the response from Llandudno Civics.

It might be worthwhile taking some of their points on board.
Is the Business Forum going to comment formally?


Chris Willemse
Chairman: CBRRA

From: Marguerite Bond-Smith
Subject: Re: Invite for Public Participation (City of Cape Town) - Informal Trading Policy & Bylaw
Date: 28 May 2013
To: Lucille Muller,, Marius Coetsee

Dear Lucille

attached please find comment from LCA.

Commentary Informal Trading Policy LCA May 2013

Letter 26 March 2013 Sam Festus re Informal Trading

kind regards

Marguerite Bond-Smith
CA(SA) PGDipTax LLB (UNISA) LLM (Environmental Law)(UCT)
Environmental Researcher and Advisor

From: Lucille Muller

Good day All

Attached please find the Informal Trading Policy and Proposed Amendment to the Informal Trading By-law for public participation.  Could you please ensure that the attached is forwarded to the relevant organisations within your sector.  Also, in email below is the dates and venues of the public engagements.

Kind regards
Lucille Muller
Good Hope Subcouncil 16:   Wards:  54, 74 & 77

Monday, 27 May 2013

CBW: Please Support the Haven’s Winter Drive

The Haven Night Shelter Organisation is embarking on its annual “winter drive” where the public is asked to donate warm clothing and shoes, blankets, toiletries and non-perishable foods to be distributed in the Haven’s work with Cape Town’s homeless and needy over the cold winter months.

The Haven is of course the partner of our successful community vagrancy initiative established by the Camps Bay Business Forum in 2011, with the support of the wider Camps Bay community.

I appeal to all residents and businesses to support the Haven’s winter drive, as many of you kindly did last year. Please drop off any items you wish to donate (either in boxes or secure plastic bags) at the Camps Bay Law Enforcement offices opposite the Tidal Pool between 8am and 4pm daily or you can call Ricardo Beukes our Camps Bay Fieldworker on 082 0498 209 to arrange for collection.

Thank you very much in advance for all your support!

Best wishes

Simon Kneel

Camps Bay Business Forum Chairperson
Email -
Tel. 021 438 3416/082 990 5577

Thursday, 23 May 2013

CB SAPS Request For Inputs: Application for Off-Consumption Licence In Camps Bay: 17 The Mead Way, Camps Bay

The Station Commander and DLO/DPO, SAPS, Camps Bay

For Attention: Capt. Isaacs and WO Myburgh

Dear Capt. Isaacs & WO Myburgh


Your e-mail correspondence of 20 May 2013, which was supplementary to your e-mail of 08 May instant, refers.

You state that the applicant does not intend selling liquor from the premises at 17 The Meadway, Camps Bay but will rather be selling on-line, from a remote producer/storage to a prospective customer. This immediately raises the question as to whether it is the applicant or the premises, or both that need to be registered in terms of the Act.

However, it is common cause that liquor may not be sold from residential premises and, as such, this application is fatally flawed. However, the CBRRA will comment further on this application with specific reference to the Western Cape Liquor Act, 4 of 2008 as amended:
32. (1) A person may not micro-manufacture or sell liquor unless authorised to do so in terms of a licence issued in terms of this Act, the Liquor Act or the Liquor Act, 1989 (Act 27 of1989).

Such licence includes for
(a) …….
(b) ……….
     (c) a licence for the sale of liquor for consumption off the premises where the
          liquor is sold;
     (d)  …….
     (e)  ……..

Of the five different categories, there is only one, (c) above, that is exclusively for an off-consumption operation. Clearly, the applicant is not applying for such a licence as he/she has confirmed that no liquor will be sold from the premises at 17 The Meadway.

34. The Liquor Licensing Tribunal may not grant a licence, unless it is satisfied on a
balance of probabilities that—
(a) the granting thereof is in the public interest;

The CBRRA, the CPF, the Neighbourhood Watch and its affiliates, all local schools and churches and the community as a whole are all vehemently opposed to the granting of off-consumption liquor licences. This in itself, in terms of the Act, requires that the Liquor Licensing Tribunal refuses this application.

36. (1) An application for a licence of a category referred to in section 33 must be made to the Board by submitting on or before the prescribed date to the Board and the designated liquor officer in whose area of jurisdiction the proposed licensed premises are located—
(a) the prescribed application form properly completed;
(b) a zoning certificate or a copy of a planning application submitted to the
municipality concerned in terms of applicable planning legislation;

In terms of the new Cape Town Zoning Scheme (CTZS), there is no provision for the sale of liquor from a property zoned as SR1 (single residential zone) or GR 1 - 6 (general residential zones), either as a primary right or an additional right. Therefore, this applicant cannot have a deemed zoning certificate that complies with the abovementioned legislation. On this basis alone, the application must fail.

54. (1) …..

(4) A licensee or a manager, as the case may be, may not allow a person
under the age of eighteen (18) years to be in a part of a licensed premise which such a person may not be in terms of this Act or in terms of a condition of the licence.

Clearly, this condition precludes the running of a licensed liquor outlet from a residential house, as it would be impossible for the Authorities to enforce the conditions where children under the age of 18 years have unfettered access to such residential premises.
Place of sale

58. (1) A licensee may not sell or supply liquor from any place other than the licensed premises.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a licensee may advertise the sale of liquor and solicit and receive orders for the purchase of liquor elsewhere than on the licensed premises.

This provision (2) most closely represents this application under consideration. However, it clearly indicates that the premises at 17 The Meadway should not be part of any liquor licence application. The correct reading of the Act is that the applicant must apply for a licence to sell liquor but the licensed premises must be either where the liquor is stored or any retail centre where the customer collects the liquor. It cannot be where applicant conducts such on-line business, especially by applicant’s own account on the application.

If the applicant now wishes to amend the application to include for sale/storage of liquor on the premises at 17 The Meadway, Camps Bay, then such application must re-advertised and this will be strenuously opposed by the entire community, which shall rely on the provisions of s34(a), s36(1)(b) and s54(1)(4) of the Act.

CBRRA trusts that it has the support of SAPS, Camps Bay in this matter.

Kind regards


Sunday, 19 May 2013

Chair answer questions re subs

Hi Dennis

Firstly, CBRRA's cost involvement with the Blinkwater case preceded your matter by at least 2 years. You were clearly informed at the time that CBRRA could offer no financial assistance to the case you wished to pursue. However, you received total support from CBRRA by way of technical assistance, affidavits and its agreement to lend its name as co-applicant in the matter. You also indemnified the CBRRA against any adverse cost orders that may have arisen from the case.

The Harrison (Blinkwater) case has been debated and reported upon at length, both by Manco and at public meetings. There has been total transparency and as the financial obligations arise, they are dealt with and reported to the members of CBRRA.

Insofar as your reference to "protecting CBRRA (sic)" is concerned, let me comment as follows:
CBRRA encourages home owners to get involved in protecting themselves and the greater community against the abuses of the City's planning department. To this end, it will offer whatever resources it has at its disposal to assist in such matters - to the point of lending its considerable "moral high ground" status as a co-applicant in High Court applications (provided suitable financial guarantees are put in place to protect it from adverse cost-orders). The CBRRA is simply not in funds to finance such applications on its own, or even assist.

In your particular case, it was sad but not unusual that neighbours were quick to encourage but unwilling to financially assist in the matter. However, that said, the Court's decision to interdict the building works (and the latest offer by the owner to reduce the height of the building, by means of a servitude in your favour), is certainly very much to your personal advantage. In other words, your financial outlay has given you a positive result - which is only fair and right.

Btw, our co-applicant in the Harrison matter has had to pay out more money than your case cost - and that for no benefit at all, given what CBRRA's legal team considered a very unfair judgement and adverse costs order. However, he continues to provide his considerable legal services to the CBRRA on a voluntary basis.

Personally, I cannot reconcile the funding of a successful case in which you were a direct beneficiary, with a reluctance to pay annual subscriptions to a civic association that has supported you in your matter and continues to operate to the benefit of the community. But that is your choice.

As things stand, the Harrison case will be discussed at the next CBRRA public meeting. If you are a paid-up member, it will not only be your right to attend but you will be more than welcome to raise any issues that you feel pertinent.


Chris Willemse

On 17 Apr 2013, at 2:48 PM, Dennis vd Westhuizen wrote:

Hi Chris

Thanks for your reply.

Based on what you have said and the zero financial help I have received from the very same organisation that defended Blinkwater, I cannot find my way to paying any subscriptions to CBRRA. My feeling is that I have spent a large sum of money protecting the CBRP and I have therefore indeed paid my share.

I trust that you will pass this email onto all of the members of the CBRRA. My question is under whose authority was the money spent on the Harrison case. Has this case ever been discussed in detail with all members of the CBRRA? Is this case completely transparent?

Can we put this subject and the costs thereof onto the next meeting and be 100% transparent with it? We need a full presentation of why this was taken on and why it was driven so far.

Apologies for my questions, however I feel a little left out in the cold.



From: Chris Willemse []
Sent: 17 April 2013 02:23 PM
To: Dennis vd Westhuizen
Subject: Re: Annual subscriptions

Hi Dennis

The CBRRA had a dedicated legal "war chest" (from previous successful litigations) when it opposed Harrison. This was used up during the case and other concerned residents (whom I can't name at their request) put up any shortfall. Insofar as the SCA and Concourt appeals are concerned, our co-litigant was responsible for these costs by mutual arrangement. Currently, there is a pending outstanding cost from Harrison of R75000, for which CBRRA has cover.

Insofar as any costs from the City are concerned, they have remained untaxed to date and we would rather just leave it as such.

Hope this helps.


From: "Dennis vd Westhuizen"
Date: 17 April 2013
Subject: Annual subscriptions

A question I have for you, who has paid for the legal costs at Blinkwater (Harrisons house)??????

Kind regards
Dennis van der Westhuizen
Tel: +27 (0)21 551 0575

Friday, 17 May 2013

CCT Ward Allocation Project Proposals 2014/15 WARDS 54, 74 & 77

Currently, there is R700 000 (capex/opex) available per ward for ward allocation projects in the 2014/15 financial year. The process has started to identify possible ward projects in consultation with the public, officials and councillors. Attached are the criteria to be used when identifying proposed projects.

You are invited to submit proposals in this regard for the Subcouncil 16 area, indicating the following:
1.           project description
2.           area and ward
3.           cost estimate
It would be appreciated if any proposals you may wish to make are forwarded to me as soon as possible but not later than 18 June 2012.


1 Comply with Council policy
2 Be on Council land and /or a Council facility
3 Be able to be completed by the end of June 2015
4 Be subject to technical evaluation
5 Once completed, should not result in future additional operational or maintenance costs by Council
6 Add value to the immediate environment

Kind regards / Vriendelike groete/ Ngombulelo omkhulu

Marius Coetsee

Monday, 13 May 2013

Student crashes on rocks in mom’s Jag

Aurora Marcopoulos,19, is recovering in hospital after her mother s Jaguar she was driving veered off the road and crashed into the rocks at Bakoven near Camps Bay on Saturday. Picture: NEIL 

The father of a 19-year-old being treated for a minor concussion and severe bruising says he is determined to find out what caused her mother’s Jaguar to veer off the road and crash into the rocks at Bakoven near Camps Bay.

Aurora Marcopoulos, from Hout Bay, was recovering in ICU after undergoing tests at the Christiaan Barnard Memorial Hospital on Sunday.

ER24 spokesman Derrick Banks said Marcopoulos was still inside the car, wearing her seatbelt, when she was found at 7am after the car had rolled down an embankment on Victoria Road.

“ER24, Fire and Rescue, police, emergency services and community medics assisted in the rescue. Paramedics treated her for suspected neck and back injuries with multiple cuts and abrasions on her body. She was removed from the car and treated further,” he said.

Banks said the Skymed Rescue helicopter transferred the driver from the scene on to the road where she was then transported to hospital in a serious but stable condition.

Marcopoulos’ father, Haris Marcopoulos, said she was on her way home in her mother’s Jaguar at about 2am on Saturday after a night out with friends in Cape Town when the accident happened.

“We became concerned when she didn’t come back, but then assumed that she had stayed with her friends. When we got the call about the accident, we rushed there. We always tell our children to let us know when they’re on their way so we can keep track of when they are expected to get back, but we are just glad that she is fine,” he said.

Marcopoulos said his daughter, a full-time media and politics student at UCT and a part-time model, was known to be very responsible.

“We believe that she could have lost control or fallen asleep behind the wheel because they did tests to check her alcohol level, or if her drink was spiked, but they were negative.

”A number of her belongings were stolen,” Marcopoulos said.

He said the family was at hospital to visit Aurora who was still sedated on pain medication after being treated for a minor concussion and fractured ribs on Sunday.

“We will have to wait until she recovers to find what really happened. She is a very lucky girl. Doctors say she will make a full recovery soon,” Marcopoulos said.

Christiaan Barnard Memorial Hospital spokeswoman Michelle Norris confirmed Marcopoulos’s injuries and said she was stable, but could not confirm when she would be discharged.

Police spokesman Tembinkosi Kinana said a case of negligent and reckless driving was opened as police were still investigating the incident.

“At this stage we have not received reports regarding whether or not she was under the influence of alcohol,” he said.

Securing of site: ERF 1001 CAMPS BAY

Hi Anton
The CBRRA has no objection to the securing of the site and, in fact, welcomes it as the site has become a major security problem in the area.
We are sure that this will not breach the Court order but will be advised by you in this matter.
Chris Willemse

On 13 May 2013, at 8:42 AM, Anton Slabbert wrote:
Dear Dennis and Chris
Please see the e-mail below and the one attached and then let me have your instructions.
Many thanks and kind regards

From: Carel Hofmeyr []
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:13 PM
To: Anton Slabbert
Subject: ERF 1001 CAMPS BAY
Dear Anton
 Please see annexed my client’s email to me regarding the work required to secure his building. I would be grateful if you could take instructions from your clients and confirm whether they are amenable to this proposal. I will provide you with our proposed settlement agreement shortly.
Carel Hofmeyr

Wednesday, 8 May 2013

Event Permissions: EO13-0585- Cape Town Beach 5's Rugby- Camps Bay Beach 14-15 Dec 2013

Hi Charmaine

Check the comments below for your action.

Further, I see in the event application that the event venue will be at ‘The Bungalow’.  This is a restaurant just above our field, therefore not where you will be having the event (unless something has changed)- your event is on ‘The Edgar Lipsett Oval’ (Camps Bay High School B Field).

This is going to create confusion, please rectify ASAP

Kind Regards

Victor van Heerden
Camps Bay High School

From: "Dr Mark Vella ND"
Date: 07 May 2013
To: Peter Mead, Simon Kneel, David Raad, Chris Bertie, Bernard Schafer", Ian Merrington, Chris Willemse

Hello all

Please see notice of this event

I think the Application is at his time incomplete but the event does have some positives for Camps Bay in light of recent discussion about attracting top events to the area. Fortunately the application is very early and there is plenty time for feedback as well as for them to improve their application

future always use to mail me regarding events

Mark Vella
Camps Bay events Co-ordinater
on behalf of the Camp Bay Community Policing Forum

From: Alicia Hendricks []
Sent: Monday, May 06
Subject: EO13-0585 - Cape Town Beach 5's Rugby - Camps Bay Beach - 14 - 15 December 2013

Good day all

Please see attached and below for your information and feedback. Kindly forward the required comment to BUSI KWISOMBO by Friday, 14 June 2013. Kindly forward to any relevant role players that may have been excluded from the list.

Kind Regards,

Alicia Hendricks
Tel : 27 21 417 4035
Fax: 086 576 1580
City of Cape Town
Film and Events Permit Office

Public Participation Invitation: Utility Services

Good Day All

The Utility Services Directorate will be conducting a public participation process on the following plans during the month of May 2013:

•           The Water Services Development Plan
•           The Integrated Waste Management Plan
•           The Electricity Services Business Plan

Attached please find the advert for your information. Please submit comment on or before Friday 31 May2013

Kind regards / Vriendelike groete/ Ngombulelo omkhulu

Vivienne Sasman
Admin Assistant
Good Hope Subcouncil 16
Tel: 021 487 2759
Fax: 021 487 2208
"Sub-councils:  Here to serve you well"

Interview: Erf 1695, 16 Francolin Road, Camps Bay


The Chairperson of Sub-Council has agreed to the request of the objectors for an interview, and I confirm that this matter will be considered at the May  meeting of the Sub-Council 16.

The date, time and venue for the interview are as follows:

Date:  Monday, 20 May 2013                                                                  
Time:  will be communicated soon

Venue:  Council Chambers, 44 Wale Street, 11th Floor, Cape Town

The planner’s report will form the basis for discussion & will be delivered to the physical address as reflected in the report. If, after having read the report, or discussed the matter with the applicant / objector, or for any other reason, you see no need to attend the interview, please would you advise Mr Marius Coetsee (tel: 021-487 2055 ) or Ms Lucille Muller of this as soon as possible.

Kind regards
Kaamilah Allie
Good Hope Subcouncil 16:   Wards:  54, 74 & 77
10th Floor, 44 Wale Street, Cape Town
Tel:  021-487 2005
Fax: 021-487 2208 / 086 7191 640
Cell:  082 290 3485
Email:  or
"Sub-councils:  Here to serve you well"

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

Have Your Say: Draft Events Policy

Good day all

The City of Cape Town’s Events,Tourism and Marketing Department invites you to comment on its Draft Events  Policy. A sector meeting will be held with all interested and affected parties where verbal comments can be made.

Date: 9 May 2013
Time: 16:30
Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, 12 Hertzog Boulevard,
Cape Town

The draft Events Policy will be available for viewing at all subcouncil
offices and on the City’s website
from 6 May 2013.

Comments can be submitted in any of the following ways:
The closing date for public comment is 14 May 2013.

For further information please
contact Yolande Quinton on
021 417 4928 or e-mail

Monday, 6 May 2013

Camps Bay features in Cape Town Sketchers Facebook Group

The images below are from a showcase for sketches done on site in in the Cape Peninsula....The Facebook group sketch our gorgeous area, vibrant city & suburbs, and the People of the Cape. Please join them!

Friday, 3 May 2013

CBRRA response to Erf 58 Rider Plan Submission


From: Chris Willemse
Date: 29 May 2013 2:22:34 PM SAST
To: Ossie Gonsalves
Cc: Barry Varkel, Chrissie Phillips , Rafeeq Fischer, Armien Samuels, Peter Henshall-Howard
Subject: Re: 12 Victoria Drive Camps Bay - Rider Plan SubmissionHi Ossie

Thanks for taking my call this morning.

Insofar as Erf 58 is concerned, please could you confirm over which specific area of the works the cease works is effective.

Clearly, the decision by Bradbury to withdraw the most recent plans is merely to obviate a bit of inconvenient public scrutiny.
However, the Feb '13 plans, now under consideration, indicate the "as built" situation of the deck over the garage roof - albeit with a "balustrade" purportedly preventing pedestrian access thereto.
Given the withdrawn plans indicating no balustrade and taking the new Zoning Scheme into consideration, CBRRA yet again draws your attention to the provision in both the old and new Schemes that the City must refuse approval for plans that attempt to evade the intention of the Scheme.

As it is now appears that the City will approve any and all plans submitted by this developer, despite clear contraventions and evasions, CBRRA requests that it and the affected neighbours be notified immediately upon the approval of whatever plans are being assessed.


Chris Willemse

29 May 2013, Ossie Gonsalves wrote:

Hi Chris,

I returned your call last night and will try again this morning.

Please see e-mail below from Steve Long requesting that we continue processing the plans submitted in February 2013, which I showed you.

He is also informing Council that he has now been instructed not to seek approval for the boundary, garden screens and the entrance lobby. He will seek approval at an appropriate time, If his client wishes to build those features later.


Ossie Gonsalves
District Manager : Table Bay District
Economic, Environmental & Spatial Planning Directorate
Planning and Building Development Management Department
2nd Floor, Media City Building
C/o Hertzog Boulevard and Heerengracht Street, Cape Town
Tel: (021) 400 6443

From: Steve Long [] 
Sent: 29 May 2013 12:02 AM
To: Ossie Gonsalves
Cc: Stuart Bradbury; Carel Hofmeyr
Subject: 12 Victoria Drive Camps Bay - Rider Plan Submission

Dear Ossie

I confirm that I have been instructed not to seek approval now for the boundary, garden screens and the entrance lobby. If my client wishes to build those features later, he will seek approval at an appropriate time and you are not required now to consider any proposals made in respect of them. I confirm therefore that my client seeks approval now of the rider plans submitted on 27 February 2013 which the neighbours and the CBRRA have already commented on.

I look forward to being informed of your decision. Please let me know if you need anything further from me at this stage.

Yours sincerely 

Steve Long
F R E E S P A C E     A R C H I T E C T S
Tel -021 434 5073 

From: Chris Willemse
Date: 20 May 2013 
To: Ossie Gonsalves 

Subject: Fwd: ERF 58 Bakoven

Hi Ossie

With reference to Barry Varkel's notes below, the CBRRA comments as follows:

The latest submission of plans, by your account, now show the illegal intention of this project that we claimed was always present ab initio.

It is sad indeed that the neighbours and community who dutifully pay their rates to the City and therefore are entitled to protection under the law by the City, are once again sacrificed on the alter of greed of developers that appears to be so embraced by the City's planning department.

It is clear that meeting with architect Steve Long will simply perpetuate the myth of negotiation and transparency that has been conjured up by owner Bradbury to date. Long has made himself guilty of fraud in this matter and his feeble attempts to act in a professional manner are dismissed with the contempt that they deserve. He has lied and deceived from the outset of this project and we will not afford him any accreditation by meeting with him. However, we would appreciate meeting with you to view the plans - and please could it be this week.

If the City planners believe that registered servitudes, which they have patently been made aware of, do not constitute any rights to citizens and ratepayers, and can merely be ignored by the authorities, with the consequent real prejudice to affected neighbours, then it is obvious that the "social contract" between the Authority and citizens has been seriously breached by that Authority.

The CBRRA still contends that any alteration to the courtyard and environs constitutes a variation to the original departure application and renders it necessary that the application be advertised anew.

Further, the City has the provision, both in the old and new CTZS's (s6 and s21.1.5 respectively), to refuse planning permission in the event of an evasion of the scheme. The many duplicitous, retrospective planning applications must surely make this project fall into that category.

A serious charge has been made that Bradbury has illegally expropriated City-owned land. It is necessary to survey the Beta Rd boundary wall to test the validity of this allegation. It is surprising that this is not obvious to the City.


Chris Willemse

On 17 May 2013, at 5:22 PM, Barry Varkel wrote:

Hi Chris,

Here are the salient points of my conversation with Ossie who called me today at 4.50pm.

1. He wants to set up another meeting with us and Steve Long;
2. There are new plans which have now been submitted.
3. What they want to do is:
3.1 Clad the vibacrete wall on their side.
3.2 Access the garage roof up to the planter. (I said we had said they wanted to do this all along, but they denied it in writing).
3.3 Put up screens around the pool for wind and privacy up to 1.7m - 1.8m.
4. Henshall Howard said that a survey of the street boundary wall is not necessary. Why do we need it?

Ossie said he asked for the survey for clarity reasons. 

Ossie said in terms of the new zoning scheme, they can access the garage roof. I said to Ossie that Chris had made the technical point of this then throwing out their whole planning process and they'll have to start again and advertise.

The meeting will be the week after next. Ossie's P.A. will set it up.

I said they're absolute liars. They have already started the pool structure without planning permission which is what they've done all along. Ossie said they don't need plans for this.

I said it's like a witness lying on the witness stand and within the lies there are even more lies. Disgusting really. Ossie seemed to agree.

Kind regards

Barry Varkel

30 April 2013

Mr Ossie Gonsalves
The District Manager
Planning & Building Dev Management
City of Cape Town

Dear Ossie


Firstly, CBRRA thanks you for your time on Monday 29th instant to view and discuss the abovementioned plans. Thanks also to Juliet Leslie.

CBRRA hereby confirms that it is its legal advice that the amendments to the plans for the courtyard constitute a material alteration to that area and trigger the need for advertisement to the community, given that an existing departure from the CTZS was granted for this area and such departure was granted in terms of letters of no objection from the community. Whatever the City’s assessment of the plans may be, the provisions of PAJA require that this aspect of the plans be subject to a public participation process, as was originally required.

On a technical basis, the existing courtyard was over-excavated to create a greater area and allow for access from the garage, and to disguise this fact, a solitary, lonely, gable has been placed against the wall at the intersection of the house and garage. Not only is this a pathetic attempt to hide the actual illegal height of the wall, it is clear that it is a temporary structure, as it retains nothing. 
Further, it has been held by the WC High Court that such devices cannot be used to evade the provisions of the CTZS. The authority for this is the reported judgement of Foxcroft, J in the CBRRA vs Avalon matter (35 Camps Bay Drive). Here the Court found that it was legally and logically incorrect for the City to approve a plan where a created structure could be passed off as ground, even if there had been existing ground in that location previously – and went on to use the analogy of a bridge deck being passed off as representing the level of the valley beneath it.

This was also established in the successful application in the Kloof/Queens Rd matter where the City was a respondent. In both cases the Court ruled that the re-establishment of a sliver of “ground” does not qualify it as a ground level. Therefore, in this case, a departure is required to allow for a further portion of the building to exceed the 6m height restriction, as the applicant has unilaterally, and by his own volition, decided to excavate the courtyard in excess of that legally approved.

Returning to the original point, you agreed that there is at least some deviation from the approval granted in terms of the s98 departure. Notwithstanding any assessment that the City may make, it is clear that the community must at least be invited to comment on the application.

The rider plans indicate a non-trafficable garage roof deck, finished with Balau timber. This clearly needs to be unbundled.

Firstly, this whole area has been constructed without any planning approval and therefore constitutes illegal building works. However, that is an enforcement issue.

It is completely non-believable that a non-trafficable deck would be surfaced in an expensive timber finish. Not only that, but it lacks building maintenance logic to place such a finish over waterproofing, which would, as a consequence, become inaccessible for routine maintenance and repairs. The lack of a weatherstep at the intersection between this deck and the outside patio is also a very clear sign that the ultimate usage of the deck is for pedestrian traffic. Ignoring the duplicity of the planning application, this would then require a departure.

This applicant has illegally deviated from his approved plans on so many occasions (even by his own account) that CBRRA submits that the City has to be bound by s6 of the CTZS covering the evasion of the intent of the Scheme and require that the applicant return to the previously approved system of planting the deck at a lower (stepped) level to the outside patio. Compliance and rectification of the current building works must also be sought prior to the consideration of the plans.

Given that this is a retrospective planning application, it is further advised that this submission be forwarded to the Good Hope Subcouncil for determination. Given the murky history of illegal building works (even as part of this current application) and fraudulent misrepresentation by the applicant (in terms of registered servitudes which he failed to mention in his original application), any use of delegated authority by the City planning officials is likely to be challenged legally at a later stage.

The issue of possible smoke pollution from the recently installed chimney flue will be dealt with by Ms Phillips but it is noted that an owner’s constitutional right to the amenity of clean air on their property cannot be denied by the blind application of the National Building Regulations & Building Standards Act.  It is also noted that the Planning Department often ignores the recommendations and requirements of other departments, such as the Environmental Management Branch.

You undertook to ensure that any new plans would indicate that the illegal roof deck is to be omitted. The fact that the applicant “may have a problem” with balustrades on the roof is insufficient comfort to the neighbours and this erroneously approved element must be removed.

The CBRRA also requires that this letter be placed on the file that will be assessed by the Building Control Officer.  Please confirm that this will be done.

CBRRA looks forward to any comments that you may have on the aforegoing.

Kind regards


19 APRIL 2013

Dear Mr Hofmeyr

Your letter of 05 April 2013, addressed to Mr Ossie Gonsalves has reference.

CBRRA will use your headings with reference to the writer’s e-mail.

Planter – Photo 1 and 2:

This is simply an illegal construction and non-compliant with the approved plan. This should be clear to any legal mind.
In any event, your Client’s opinion of what is reasonable has yet to find acceptability with the community.
Your Client, despite his protestations, continues to build illegally and his instruction to his architect in this regard, is yet another in a long litany of “build now, ask later” retrospective planning applications to which the City acquiesces.

Garage Roof : Photo 3

It is difficult to ascertain if you’re actually taking instruction from suitably qualified building professionals, or merely wandering out of your field of expertise, but the general idea is to force rainwater away from buildings and not into or onto them. Although the area adjoining the roof deck is technically an exterior one, it would be contrary to good building practice to allow water to run from the roof into the “conversation pit” of the ground floor patio. It would be good building practice and correct to build a weather step along this interface.
Of course, if the two areas are to be used as one, as is alleged by the community, then a weather step will become a troublesome “trip” step.

In any event, why has an unapproved timber deck been laid over the entire area? It must have constituted a very expensive alternative to greening as specified on the approved plan and will be bothersome to remove when the waterproofing over the reinforced concrete roof needs to receive attention or maintenance.

Your, and your Client’s, confirmation that the roof deck will remain non-trafficable must be seen in the light of previous fraud, broken promises and self-confessed illegal building work.

Gabion : Photo 4

Ignoring your apparently poisoned position, what is of more concern is your cavalier attitude to the rule of law. Your Client has no planning approval to alter anything relating to the courtyard, which was also the subject to a departure from the Zoning Scheme. What you anticipate or presuppose as regards the neighbours’ attitude to the illegal building work currently being executed with your Client’s approval is simply of no concern. As an officer of the Court, you are obliged to ensure compliance with the law.

Height Departure – Photo 5

Your Client received letters of no objection (from the interested and affected neighbours and the CBRRA) to the departure application for the excess height of the proposed building relative to the finished level of the ground in the courtyard. This formed part and parcel of a private servitutal agreement between the parties that placed certain obligations on your Client. Your Client, having received his advantage from the contract, then continually breached the agreement and committed a fraud against the parties by submitting plans to the City in the first instance that didn’t comply with the terms of the said agreement.
It is unnecessary to identify “substantial changes” to the courtyard (albeit that there are patently many) - any change will trigger a departure application. It’s called transparent governance and exists to head off people like your Client.

General : Unnumbered last paragraph

The CBRRA will not dignify your pure denialism with further comment.


Your Client will not be exhibiting any good neighbourliness by relocating the satellite dish to a point below the parapet. He will merely be complying with his obligations in terms of an agreement he signed of his own free will, and in exchange for property rights which he hitherto had not enjoyed.
In terms of the said agreement, your Client is hereby instructed to relocate the satellite dish as per the agreement and it is further recorded that a sanction of R1000 per day is being levied against your Client from that date of your confirmation that the offending dish is a breach of the agreement (viz your e-mail of 05 April 2013 hereunder reply) until such time as it is relocated to a position of compliance.
This sanction will be added to those already existing and any further that might arise in the future and which, despite the terms and conditions of the agreement, your Client refuses to pay – even whilst he remains in material breach of contract.

Clearly, this will be the subject of a civil claim that the CBRRA intends launching against your Client.



Wednesday, 1 May 2013

CBRRA Ward Committee report back Apr 2013

From: Chris Willemse
Date: 01 May 2013
To: Lucille Muller, Vivienne Sasman
Subject: Ward Committee report back Apr 2013

Hi Lucille & Vivienne
Herewith report back from John Powell and me - although different Wards, the CBRRA acts as one association and can therefore only generate one report back.
I trust that this is OK.

Click on image to enlarge:


Friends of Camps Bay Beaches


Friends of Camps Bay Beaches (FCBB) has used the Table Mountain National Park policy on people walking with dogs as a guideline for these recommendations.

We are a group of citizens concerned with the environmental sustainability of Camps Bay and Glen Beaches, and with reasonable rights of access to the beaches for dogs accompanied by their owners (or handlers). FCBB consists of a group of about fifty interested stakeholders with representatives in a working group mandated to negotiate with the appropriate administrative authorities. Our primary objective is to represent and protect the interests of the dog owning community while respecting the environment and the needs of other interest groups. FCBB members will offer education to other dog owners, other beach users and proximate residents and will act as a liaison between dog owners and the Camps Bay Ratepayers Association.

FCBB working group comprises the following members: Dorly Viollier, Mikki van Zyl, Pauline Mitchell, John Lazarus, Sonia Rees, Anita Suchland, Laurie Leve, Fay Silverman, Bernie Shelley, Peter Stoppel, Dafne Nienhuys. They can be contacted at
FCBB recognises that people who walk with dogs are diverse, and use the beaches for a variety of reasons. Many people, especially women and older people who do not want to venture into remote areas on their own for fear of crime, feel safe to exercise on Camps Bay beaches with their dogs because of its good visibility. They also enjoy the scenic beauty of the beach. Moreover, the mental and physical health benefits of caring for a valued pet is well documented, and includes exercising the dog.
FCBB members are deeply aware that dog ownership demands special responsibilities in ecologically sensitive areas and where there is potential conflict with other members of the public. However, the people who bring their dogs to the beach mostly have dogs that are trained and well socialised, and are accustomed to interacting with other dogs and people.

Some members of the working group have been walking their dogs on the beach for more than thirty years and note that the primary environmental impact on the beach is caused by people who are unconcerned with clearing up their own litter, such as bottles, broken glass, plastic, paper, cardboard, cigarette butts, rotten food and dirty disposable nappies. Regrettably, people who do not clear up their dog’s excrement form part of this group. We also noted inadequate facilities for disposing of litter and little enforcement of the regulations regarding littering. Amongst the regular dog walkers (the 60 or more members of FCBB) there has for decades been voluntary adherence to an informal code of conduct to remove their dog’s faeces from the beach. There has also been a culture of educating others who are observed not to be doing so.

Code of Conduct

FCBB therefore requests that people walking with dogs be allowed to use the beach under the following conditions.

1. Dogs must be under supervision and under control at all times. (Control will be defined as the ability of the handler to recall the dog/s to heel).
2. Dog handlers must always carry a leash for each dog.
3. If a dog exhibits uncontrolled behaviour it must immediately be put on its leash.
4. All dog handlers to carry bags for collecting and disposing of their dog’s faeces.
5. All dog faeces to be collected by the handler and disposed of in litter bins.
6. FCBB members will carry cards to show their membership as a sign of their commitment to the code of conduct.
7. FCBB members will continue to educate other members of the public about removing their dog excrement and keeping their dogs under control.

Times of access

After a trial period during the summer of 2012/2013 the following times were found to be suitable for walking with dogs on Camps Bay and Glen Beaches. It is recommended that Camps Bay and Glen beaches be treated the same. 1. In summer (1 November to 30 April) until 0900 in the morning (as it was for many years). 2. In winter (1 May to 31 October) all day (as has been the rule for at least twenty years or more). 3. In winter (1 May to 31 October) until 0900 on Glen Beach.

Note: the lawns between the street and the beach are considered to be part of the beach, and therefore the same rules regarding dog walking and littering apply.