Appeal in terms of against mpt decision iro erf 860 14 Quebec RD

                 07 July 2019

The City Manager                                                                                                             

C/o The Table Bay District Manager

City of Cape Town                                                                                                                                                                

Per    appeals.tablebay@capetown.gov.za

Your ref: MPTNW 17/06/19                                                                                             

Case ID # 70401171

Dear Sir

APPEAL IN TERMS OF S108(1) OF THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN’S MUNICIPAL PLANNING BYLAW 2015 (“MPBL”) AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL (“MPT”) DECISION OF 04 JUNE, 2019 TO APPROVE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6 UNITS IN RESPECT OF ERF 860 CAMPS BAY AT 14 QUEBEC RD, CAMPS BAY

The CBCRA hereby registers its appeal against the decision of the MPT as set out in the MPT ruling of 04 June, 2019 (“the MPT decision”), ref. ID 70401171 on the grounds set out herein.

The Chair of the MPT failed to grant an interview to the CBCRA in terms of s120(11) of the MPBL. The CBCRA made a timeous request for such interview on the 29^th May 2019, which was purportedly not received by the MPT secretariat. Despite follow-up e-mails, indicating that such request was made, the request was refused by the Chair of the MPT.

However, a recall message was sent to the CBCRA on 31 May 2019 at 07h54, which indicates that there was some sort of receipt of the CBCRA e-mail by the MPT secretariat, which reads as follows:

From: MPT Oral Hearings

Subject: Recall: Interview: Case # 70401170  Erf 860 Camps Bay, 14 Quebec Rd

Date: 31 May 2019 at 7:54:07 AM SAST

To: CBRRA Campsbayratepayers

MPT Oral Hearings would like to recall the message, "Interview: Case # 70401170  Erf 860 Camps Bay, 14 Quebec Rd".

Disclaimer: This e-mail (including attachments) is subject to the disclaimer published at: http://www.capetown.gov.za/general/email-disclaimer Please read the disclaimer before opening any attachment or taking any other action in terms of this e-mail. If you cannot access the disclaimer, kindly send an email to disclaimer@capetown.gov.za and a copy will be provided to you. By replying to this e-mail or opening any attachment you agree to be bound by the provisions of the disclaimer.

The e-mail thread, confirming the above, is attached below. It also includes an e-mail from Ms Alma Horn, a member of the CBCRA Manco, confirming that the e-mails were copied to all members of the Manco at the time of sending to the MPT. Copies of such confirmation will be submitted, if required. It is noteworthy that the e-mail sent by the MPT to confirm the “no-receipt” was sent at 10h35, a few hours after the recall message.

It is clear that this e-mail was timeously sent and equally clear that the City mishandled the request. On this ground alone, the appeal must succeed.

The MPT further erred, in the opinion of the CBCRA, in finding that the application does not materially or adversely affect the rights of surrounding properties.

The increase in traffic is one such issue. Currently, Quebec Rd is developed with 12 properties and therefore the increase in density, by the addition of a further 6 units, is quite considerable.
In fact, a potential 50% increase of traffic in a cul-de-sac which is already experiencing vehicular congestion, is reason enough for the refusal of the application in terms of s99(3)(f) & (i) of the MPBL, read in conjunction with s99(2)(d) & (e) thereof.
It is submitted that the MPT failed to properly assess this issue and it could have, at the very least, ordered or requested a traffic study on the area.

The decision by the MPT falls to be set aside on this ground, too.

The MPT also failed to consider the import of the recent Concourt decision, which has made it abundantly clear that s7(b)(ii) of the NBR&S Act applies, in its entirety, to all applications. This includes the trigger of the derogation of value of a neighbouring property, which the MPT did not consider in its deliberations.

As the unsuccessful appellant in this matter, the City must now abide by the ruling of the Concourt and properly consider all applications in terms of the law. The City must also refrain from “silo” type thinking and not simply approve land use applications, knowing full well that the Building Control Officer will be faced with an impossible task when final plan assessment takes place, given that the triggers of s7(b)(ii) effectively prevent him or her from approving the submitted plans.

It is further argued that this application is not policy compliant. The City’s Densification Policy recommends that, in predominantly single dwelling precincts such as Quebec Rd, the density of land usage be increased from one unit to two. This application is for 6 units, therefore an effective increase of 500%!
As such, the application is non compliant with s99(2)(c) of the MPBL and the appeal must, accordingly, succeed.

The CBCRA respectfully requests that this appeal against the MPT decision be upheld.  

Regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE

CHAIRPERSON