Renaming District Six

CITY OF CAPE TOWN 

30 JUNE 2019

STATEMENT BY THE CITY’S EXECUTIVE MAYOR, ALDERMAN DAN PLATO 

City calls on residents to comment on renaming of District Six street

Following a request to rename Keizersgracht in District Six to its historical name of Hanover Street, I am now calling on residents and interested and affected parties to share their views as part of an official public participation process. Read more below:

With the legacy of Apartheid still present in many aspects of our daily lives, we need to be mindful of the ways in which we can contribute to addressing the wrongs that were committed. One such way is to restore historical names of places, streets and facilities that may have been changed during Apartheid. While there are many hardships that people will remember, there are some names that bring joy to our communities, and with that the memories that have positive associations. 

The City recently received a proposal for Keizersgracht in District Six to be renamed Hanover Street. 

The forced removals that took place during Apartheid will always bring painful memories to those who resided in District Six. The proposal is that the renaming could assist in igniting good memories for those who suffered from and experienced these removals.

I am now calling on residents to please share their views with us so that the City Council can consider the comments, and make an informed decision about the proposal to rename Keizersgracht.

The public participation process will officially take place as from 15 July to 26 July 2019. However, Capetonians can already submit their comments and share their stories with us by sending emails to renaming@capetown.gov.za. 

Please let us know if you agree with the proposal to have this street name changed to Hanover Street, and tell us why.

Written submissions can also be dropped off at the City’s subcouncil offices. Adverts will soon be published in newspapers across the city and we will be drawing attention to the process on the radio too.

End

Issued by: Media Office, City of Cape Town

Media enquiries: Greg Wagner, Spokesperson to the Executive Mayor, Tel: 021 400 9459, Cell: 072 623 4499, Email: Greg.wagner@capetown.gov.za (please always copy media.account@capetown.gov.za)

Third Beach, Victoria rd., Clifton - clean-up and signage request

Dear Mr. Titus and Nicola.

Thank you very much to to the team of City employees who clean up litter on a daily basis along Victoria rd., Clifton, rain or shine. They are doing a great job.

1. It is most regrettable that people leave their building and other rubbish lying around on the scenic route as today at the Third beach entrance area where the Telkom phones used to be.

2. Would it be possible to kindly arrange for a pick-up there, please and also for the pavement between The Glen and God’s Window/Tamatiedraai in Victoria rd. (and along Kloof Rd. near Nettleton Rd.) to be sanitized and for clear signage with dog-fouling fines to be clearly displayed on the fence along this scenic route stretch?  

There are people who are resolutely not cleaning up after their dogs - could the City have a fine blitz in terms of the MPBL one day, please? 

Our dog got very ill from a bacterial infection, likely as result of his sniffing along Victoria Rd., Clifton. There are some stretches along the scenic route which are worse than others. 

The daily dog fouling poses a serious health risk to City employees who work in the area (who could contract a shigella).

3. Maybe  Biopet Laboratories’ “Poo-prints” (dog DNA testing launched in Tennessee, USA) could be implemented in Cape Town on the Atlantic Seaboard too? Could the City Health authorities please consider such dog-DNA testing option as part of its pet registration process, please?  

Thank you for your kind assistance,

Public Response to the 2019/20 SDBIP

 Ke ngoko kukhutshwa isaziso ngokwecandelo-53(3)(a) loMthetho ongobuRhulumente boMmandla ongoLawulo lweziMali zikaMasipala (MFMA) ongunomb.56 wango-2003, sokuba iSicwangciso sokuNikezelwa kweNkonzo nesokuZalisekiswa koHlahlo-lwabiwo-mali (SDBIP) somnyaka-mali wama-2019/20 kunye neZishwankathelo zeSigqeba soLawulo namaKhadi amaNqaku, ziyakuthi zifumaneke kuzo zonke ii-ofisi zamabhungana (adweliswe ngezantsi apha) nakuzo zonke izakhiwo zamathala eencwadi zikamasipala, kwiintsuku eziphakathi evekini phakathi kwentsimbi phakathi kweye-08:30 neye-16:30 nokususela uLwesine 4 kweyeKhala ukuya kuma nokuquka uMvulo 5 kweyeThupha 2019. 

Amaxwebhu angahlolwa ngokuthi kusetyenziswe iwebhusayithi yethu ukususela ngowama-28 kweyeSilimela 2019, engu www.capetown.gov.za/idp 

Application for relaxation of a title deed restriction restriction & departures, 20A Fulham RD

The District Manager, Table Bay District

Development Management, Transport & Urban Development Authority

City of Cape Town

Cape Town 8000

ATTN: Mr Paul Heydenrych

Dear Mr Heydenrych

APPLICATION FOR RELAXATION OF A TITLE DEED RESTRICTION & DEPARTURES ito s82 & s83 of THE CAPE TOWN MPBL

CASE ID          70431987

APPLICANT     JND PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD

ERF                 3298

LOCATION      20A FULHAM RD

SUBURB          CAMPS BAY

The CBCRA objects to this application.

In the first instance, the advertising is insufficient and the application needs to be re-advertised, ab initio, to all registered owners of property in the township, being the Brighton Estate Extension No 3, Section 2 (1940).

The mere fact that this is a relaxation of a title deed condition in no way leads to the subverting of the court-directed requirement for the Local Authority to advertise such applications to all registered owners of property in the township. The relevant restrictive title deed condition, being one that enforces a reasonable setback from a street boundary, is of material interest and value to such owners and therefore needs to be advertised as per court ruling.

The authority for this is to be found in the ruling of Binns-Ward, J in Ex parte Optimal Property Solutions CC.

Here the court established that such notification was in accord with the rights of property owners provided for in the Constitution, which underlies the importance of property rights.

The laws of general application, such as SPLUMA, LUPA and MPBL that govern planning derive their authority from the Constitution, which remains the supreme law of the land. In any event, these Acts are silent on notifications and no SOP from a local authority can usurp constitutional imperatives, especially when a high court has ruled on such an issue.

It is submitted that proper service, on all owners of property in the township, is a prerequisite for this application to be considered.

Secondly, there is the issue of the legal requirements for the City to remove restrictive title deed conditions in the first instance.

In terms of s25 of the Constitution, a deprivation of a right in property (which includes a praedial servitude) can only be effected in terms of a law of general application and cannot be arbitrary. Which, of necessity, means that no removal/amendment/relaxation of a title deed restriction may be arbitrary in its motivation or effect. The enabling legislation of general application is, as previously mentioned, SPLUMA, LUPA and the MPBL, which all derive their authority from s25 of the Constitution.

The very fact that this application offers no reciprocity or uniformity in law, speaks to the arbitrary nature of the current application. The CBCRA reserves its rights to supplement this legal argument in the appropriate forum.

Thirdly, the application for a height departure of 1,69m will negatively affect the sea views of neighbours to the east of the subject erf and consequently derogate from the value of neighbouring properties, which triggers s7(b) of the NBR&BS Act. The Concourt recently found against the City, in the manner in which it considers the said legislation.

It must also be added that land use applications must be cognizant of the provisions of s7 and such applications must not be dealt with in a “silo” manner by leaving the determination to the Building Control Officer at some later planning stage. In fact, the land use application informs the BCO’s decision.

Further, the application for the height departure is completely inappropriate and therefore non-compliant with the provisions of s99 of the MPBL and this application falls to be refused on this ground alone.

Clearly, a relatively small amount of excavation will allow this rather immense building to comply with the DMS regulations.

We must, yet again, request that the City does not favour a developer over the rights and legitimate expectations of the rate-paying owners of property in the township.

The CBRRA requests an interview at the MPT committee meeting, which will be convened to decide this application.  

Regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE

CHAIRPERSON

CBCRA Lob Erf 3298 20A Fulham Rd

25 June 2019

The District Manager, Table Bay District

Development Management, Transport & Urban Development Authority

City of Cape Town

Cape Town 8000

ATTN: Mr Paul Heydenrych

Dear Mr Heydenrych

APPLICATION FOR RELAXATION OF A TITLE DEED RESTRICTION & DEPARTURES ito s82 & s83 of THE CAPE TOWN MPBL

CASE ID:  70431987

APPLICANT:  JND PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD

ERF:  3298

LOCATION:  20A FULHAM RD

SUBURB:  CAMPS BAY

The CBCRA objects to this application.

In the first instance, the advertising is insufficient and the application needs to be re-advertised, ab initio, to all registered owners of property in the township, being the Brighton Estate Extension No 3, Section 2 (1940).

The mere fact that this is a relaxation of a title deed condition in no way leads to the subverting of the court-directed requirement for the Local Authority to advertise such applications to all registered owners of property in the township. The relevant restrictive title deed condition, being one that enforces a reasonable setback from a street boundary, is of material interest and value to such owners and therefore needs to be advertised as per court ruling.

The authority for this is to be found in the ruling of Binns-Ward, J in Ex parte Optimal Property Solutions CC.

Here the court established that such notification was in accord with the rights of property owners provided for in the Constitution, which underlies the importance of property rights.

The laws of general application, such as SPLUMA, LUPA and MPBL that govern planning derive their authority from the Constitution, which remains the supreme law of the land. In any event, these Acts are silent on notifications and no SOP from a local authority can usurp constitutional imperatives, especially when a high court has ruled on such an issue.

It is submitted that proper service, on all owners of property in the township, is a prerequisite for this application to be considered.

Secondly, there is the issue of the legal requirements for the City to remove restrictive title deed conditions in the first instance.

In terms of s25 of the Constitution, a deprivation of a right in property (which includes a praedial servitude) can only be effected in terms of a law of general application and cannot be arbitrary. Which, of necessity, means that no removal/amendment/relaxation of a title deed restriction may be arbitrary in its motivation or effect. The enabling legislation of general application is, as previously mentioned, SPLUMA, LUPA and the MPBL, which all derive their authority from s25 of the Constitution.

The very fact that this application offers no reciprocity or uniformity in law, speaks to the arbitrary nature of the current application. The CBCRA reserves its rights to supplement this legal argument in the appropriate forum.

Thirdly, the application for a height departure of 1,69m will negatively affect the sea views of neighbours to the east of the subject erf and consequently derogate from the value of neighbouring properties, which triggers s7(b) of the NBR&BS Act. The Concourt recently found against the City, in the manner in which it considers the said legislation.

It must also be added that land use applications must be cognizant of the provisions of s7 and such applications must not be dealt with in a “silo” manner by leaving the determination to the Building Control Officer at some later planning stage. In fact, the land use application informs the BCO’s decision.

Further, the application for the height departure is completely inappropriate and therefore non-compliant with the provisions of s99 of the MPBL and this application falls to be refused on this ground alone.

Clearly, a relatively small amount of excavation will allow this rather immense building to comply with the DMS regulations.

We must, yet again, request that the City does not favour a developer over the rights and legitimate expectations of the rate-paying owners of property in the township.

The CBRRA requests an interview at the MPT committee meeting, which will be convened to decide this application.  

Regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE

CHAIRPERSON