Monday, 4 December 2023
CBCRA AGM
 | |||||||||||||||||
REMINDERCBCRA ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING | |||||||||||||||||
Please join us at the CBCRA AGM 2023 17h30 - registration 18h00 - start of the meeting | |||||||||||||||||
MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED TONIGHT INCLUDE:
| |||||||||||||||||
VENUE Refreshments will be served. | |||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Thursday, 30 November 2023
Thursday, 16 November 2023
CID Voting
A friendly reminder that if you haven’t yet voted for the Camps Bay CID, please do so here: https://campsbaycid.org/vote-now/
We need the votes in as soon as possible to have any chance of establishing the CID next year, otherwise it may be delayed until 2025 or later. With CBCSI ceasing to exist next year, this would leave us with no community-wide security solution for at least a year.
Thank you for your support. Vote here: https://campsbaycid.org/vote-now/
*CID Voting Update*
As of 9am on 16 November, 9.5 days after voting opened, the CID has crossed the halfway mark towards the required number of 1,724 yes votes.
So far,
2. This means that 94% of votes received are positive
3. A similar percentage of people who were undecided in pre-vote polling have voted yes
4. Over a third of people who indicated during pre-vote polling that they would vote no have gone on to vote yes instead
5. For people who indicated during pre-vote polling that they would vote yes, less than 2% have changed their minds
While these results are very encouraging, there is still a lot of hard work to do if we are to meet our mid-December target date to reach 1,724 votes, and implement the CID on 1 July next year.
If you’re a property owner and haven’t voted yet, please do so today. Vote online here: https://campsbaycid.org/vote-now/
Thank you.
CBCID Steering Committee
Wednesday, 15 November 2023
CBCRA takes building matter to court
but the ratepayers are taking the matter to court.
A five-star hotel designed by Scott and Partners is under way on Erf 3349 on Victoria Road.
The Place of the Bay hotel once stood on the site “Ratepayers ready to halt beachfront development, March 9, 2023”.
In a statement, the CBCRA accused the City of Cape Town of bias.
“The City has now clearly shown its bias in this matter and its slavish desire to assist unwanted and undesirable development in our world-renowned village.
“In a sworn affidavit before the High Court, a senior City planning official finally conceded that it had incorrectly approved the plans which permit the development of this monster development, which will forever destroy Camps Bay’s iconic beachfront.
“The CBCRA had pointed out this illegality in the plans, relating to the height of the building (15m instead of the permitted 10m) months ago but, somehow, it took this long for the City planners to actually ‘notice’ the problem.
“However, the City is undeterred and has accepted and approved “rider” plans from the developer, to ‘overcome’ this problem. Unsurprisingly, it did the approval in a couple of weeks, rather than waiting time for planning approval offered to the general public, which is months or years.
“Legally, it is not allowed to do this. Once the City has approved plans, it becomes functus officio and cannot in any way amend the plans, as this is the jurisdiction of the courts. The City knows this well and has, over the years, used this legal dictate to tell this ratepayer association (as well as many others in Cape Town) that, even though it concedes a planning problem in some approval, it cannot move to change it as only the High Court can do so (with the associated costs).
“Suddenly, with a very wealthy developer (the site cost R230m) who is unlikely to be too charmed with the City’s ineptitude, the law seems to have magically changed for certain well-paid City officials.
“Further, in a similar case some years ago, which also involved the CBCRA, the presiding judge ruled that a rider plan cannot rescue the unlawfulness of the principal approval (Para 15 of Camps Bay Residents Ratepayers Association and Others v XXX and Others (2005/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 30; 2009 (6) SA 190 (WCC) (24 March 2009).
“The CBCRA further alleges that the City planners, at the behest of the developer – and behind closed doors and with no public participation – simply changed a decision of the original planning approval to accommodate the developer. This relates to allowing 49 parking bays in lieu of the 120 required.”
The CBCRA said it is certainly not opposed to development that is “sensible, sensitive and sustainable – and within the law”.
“The City has desperately attempted to delay this matter and managed to get the court date of 18 October postponed to 27 November 2023, all to allow the developer to build further and possibly render our legal application nugatory.
“The developer’s builder has worked illegal hours, abused the public resources of the pedestrian pavements, allows its vehicles to block traffic and drive in the wrong direction in one-way streets, has blocked an entire street without any permit and even destroyed the root system of the iconic tree at the corner of The Fairway and Victoria Road, leading to the felling of that landmark in Camps Bay’s history.”
City of Cape Town spokesperson, Luthando Tyhalibongo, said the plans are compliant and responded to the CBCRA.
“The ratepayer association’s attack on the City and its officials is unfounded. In its High Court review application, the association makes misleading and false claims of ‘unlawfulness’ such as (CBCRA chairman Chris) Willemse indicating that the reduction in parking is ‘blatantly unlawful’. That was, as Mr Willemse is aware, however, done due to an amendment to the law in 2019. The 2019 reduction in parking requirements for hotels was publicly advertised.
“The City has refuted all of the association’s review grounds. One error however required correction as the City found that a small part of the fifth-storey, which has not yet been built, would have breached the height limit. This was corrected on 17 October 2023 with an amendment to the building plan. As that part of the hotel had not been built, the height limit was therefore never breached.”
Friday, 3 November 2023
Beachfront Hotel
2 November 2023
The CBCRA published a statement on its website, dated 30 October 2023.
That statement was withdrawn on 2 November 2023.
The CBCRA apologises to the current developer of the Camps Bay Hotel site, for any incorrect allegations made in that statement about that developer.
Thursday, 2 November 2023
Fire on Camps Bay Drive
A blaze on Camps Bay Drive on the slopes of Table Mountain was extinguished within 90 minutes of it being reported on Sunday, October 29, at 5.25pm.
Spokesperson for the City’s Fire and Rescue Service, Jermaine Carelse said the cause of the fire was unknown and there were no injuries.
“We have experienced an increase in vegetation fires. Predominantly the summer season is normally as from December up to end of March. The City’s Fire Service was assisted by SANParks and (NCC Environmental Services). By midnight the area was declared safe and crews inspected the areas every two to three hours to monitor for any flare-ups,” he said.
SANParks spokesperson Lauren Howard-Clayton said invasive plants cannot be blamed for the fire.
“The fire burnt through a stand of mature Proteas so invasive plants did not play a roll in this fire. The rapid spread was as a result of the extreme, local wind conditions,” she said.
“There is a park wide invasive plant management programme managed by SANParks Biodiversity Special Projects. Clearing has been expanded to high altitude with the recent work undertaken on the slopes above Newlands as part of a Helihack.”
Thursday, 26 October 2023
Die Burger: Bouwerk in Kampsbaai draai in November in die hof 25 Oktober 2023
Artikel 25 Oktober 2024 in Die Burger deur Jana Breytenbach. ©netwerk24
Victoriaweg in Kampsbaai, Kaapstad, is sekerlik een van die gesogste plekke moontlik vir 'n hotelof restaurant.
Dit is waarom die maatskappy Mas Sam vroeër vanjaar R230 miljoen betaal het vir 'n erf waarvoor reeds voorheen goedkeuring gegee is dat dit herontwikkel kon word.
Kampsbaai se belastingsbetalersvereneging is egter nie hiermee geneë nie en is hof toe om die ontwikkeling te stuit....
Lees verder aan die artikel hieronder:
Thursday, 5 October 2023
Beachfront Hotel - Help prevent the destruction & desecration of the Camps Bay beachfront
Herewith the APPLICANTS' HEADS OF ARGUMENT 8.11.23 on THE CAMPS BAY & CLIFTON RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER / THE CAMPS BAY BEACH HOTEL (PTY) LTD AND SIX OTHERS HIGH COURT CASE NO: 8640/2023
Please click on the link below to download the PDF (137 pages, 998kb)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sNKaxtAyzaOQ3_2ZgikVyIN2ZnOvLhny/view?usp=sharing
___________________________________________________________________________
Herewith the legal communication regarding the pending litigation challenge pertaining to the development of the proposed beachfront hotel:
Published on this blog 5 October 2023
Dear Sirs / Mesdames
THE CAMPS BAY & CLIFTON RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER / THE
CAMPS BAY BEACH HOTEL (PTY) LTD AND SIX OTHERS
HIGH COURT CASE NO: 8640/2023
1. We refer to the above and the pending litigation, wherein the Camps Bay & Clifton
Ratepayers’ Association challenges the legality of the City’s approval/s pertaining to
the development of a new hotel and restaurant building on the property known as Erf
3349 Camps Bay. This letter is addressed to you, at your specific request, to express
an opinion about your prospects of success in the pending litigation.
2. Firstly, we believe that you have a very good prospects of success. We are of the
respectful view that you should succeed to set aside the approval of the aforesaid
development. We shall proceed to set out, in short version below, some of the
primary reasons why we respectfully believe that you should succeed in Court.
3. The formal approval of the development was done on the basis that there should be
at least 120 (one hundred and twenty off-street) off-street parking bays provided for
the hotel and the restaurant. That approval went to the highest level and was also
the decision of the Executive Mayor of Cape Town (which is the highest planning
appeal authority in the City). Thereafter, in what appears to have been a form of
improper “off the record” (secret) meeting between the developer’s architect and 3
(three) planning officials of the City, they decided that the 120 (one hundred and
twenty) off-street parking bay requirement would not apply to this development. One
of these planning officials proceeded to recommend to the department dealing with
building plans that a building plan which only provided for 49 (forty-nine) parking
bays would suffice for the development. The building plan was approved on that
basis. Such approval was clearly unlawfully manipulated. To be lawfully approved, a
building plan must meet the requirements of the underlying planning approvals and
the law as it existed at the time that application was originally made for the planning
approval.
4. The municipal spatial development framework (“the MSDF”) of Cape Town
determines that a general height restriction of 10 (ten) metres applies to all buildings
across Camps Bay (since the imposition of that limitation). Item 190 of the City’s
Development Management Scheme (i.e. the zoning scheme regulations) stipulates
that no facade of any building in Camps Bay may exceed a height of 10 (ten) metres
above any specific point on the ground. The approved development of the hotel and
restaurant exceeds these limitations:
4.1 No height departure was granted to allow for a building which is higher than
10 (ten) meters.
4.2 The facades of the new building will be approximately 15 (fifteen) metres at
several points along the perimeter thereof, once constructed.
4.3 The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013 prohibits a
Municipal Planning Tribunal (“the MPT”) from approving any development
which is in conflict with the MSDF of a municipality. The MPT clearly breached
this statutory prohibition when it approved this development.
4.4 When the MPT approved the development, it set a maximum heights above
mean sea level for the new building. The approved building plans show that
this height limitation is exceeded.
4.5 A building plan cannot be approved which conflicts with existing law and/or the
underlying planning approvals for the development, as granted by the
Municipal Planning Tribunal (“the MPT”) and the Executive Mayor (as the
planning appeal authority).
5. Because the development is one for a hotel and restaurant, there are minimum
requirement applicable for loading bays to be provided. Such loading bays must be
of a minimum specific width and the headroom must also meet specific requirements
(to allow delivery vehicles which need larger bays to park). The approved building
plans show that only one loading bay is provided which does not meet either the
width or the headroom requirements. It is incomprehensible how a building plan for a
development of this nature could be approved, without proper provision being made
for deliveries. Hotels and restaurants require large numbers of deliveries on a daily
basis.
6. Also, there are minimum requirements which apply to a development of this nature
insofar as a refuse room is concerned. The amount of refuse produced by a hotel
and restaurant of this nature, will be enormous. The refuse room provided for this
development is far too small to accommodate the requirements of a hotel and
restaurant of this scale. There is no provision made for the sorting of refuse; only 24
(twenty-four) wheely bins can be accommodated; and the placing of the refuse room,
which is on a different level to the street, does not provide easy access to the street,
from which refuse removal is supposed to take place by the City. The Solid Waste
Department of the City did not support the approval of the building plans. Yet the
department responsible for the approval of building plans was informed, incorrectly,
that there was no objection to the draft building plans. Had the correct facts been
known, the building plans would not have been approved.
7. Victoria Road, which is the road onto which the hotel and restaurant will primarily
face, is a provincial main road. There is a 5 (five) meter building line set-back
applicable to that road. Only the Premier of the Western Cape can approve a setback
from the building line on Victoria Road. The Premier can legally do so, only
after plans are submitted to the Premier which show the purpose of the set-back and
the development. A relaxation of the building line was done by officials of the
provincial Department of Transport, who had no authority to do so, but even that
approval (on which the developer relies) lapsed years ago. Notwithstanding, the
building plan was approved with the support of the planning department of the City.
The department responsible for the approval of building plans was not made aware
of this legal requirement.
8. There are numerous other smaller technical requirements with which the building
plans and the planning approvals for the development did not comply. All these
issues are in the Court papers and will be argued when the matter does come before
the High Court for judicial review.
9. In short, based on the above, we are of the respectful view that you should succeed
before the High Court and that the development of the hotel and restaurant building
on Victoria Road, Camps Bay will not be allowed to proceed. The approval thereof
should be set aside and we are very positive about your prospects of success.
10. Please advise if you have any further questions.
Yours faithfully
VAN RENSBURG & CO
Per:
L J VAN RENSBURG
ATTORNEYS, NOTARIES, CONVEYANCERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF ESTATES
_____________________________________________________________________
PROKUREURS, NOTARISSE, AKTEVERVAARDIGERS, BOEDELBEREDDERAARS
Tel: (021) 713-2100 PO Box 249
Cell / Selfoon: 082-872-6340 BERGVLIET
7864
E-pos / E-mail: Leon@vrlegal.co.za 127 Main Road
BERGVLIET, 7945
Website: www.legalassistance.co.za /
www.vrlegal.co.za Datum / Date: 10/08/23
_______________________________________________________________
Director/Direkteur: Leon Jansen van Rensburg B.Juris, LLB, LLM, LLD (PU vir CHO)
Professional Assistants/Professionele Assistente: Vanessa Dean LLB (UNISA), Cornelia Jansen van Rensburg BA LLB (US)
Consultant/Konsultant: Sheila Camerer BA LLB (UCT)
U verw / Your ref:
Ons verw / Our ref: LJVR/pk/VRC0510
The Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers’ Association
CAMPS BAY
Via email: campsbayratepayers@gmail.com
___________________________________________________________________________
Below are links pertaining to the proposed beachfront hotel in Victoria Road. Please click on the links to access the pdf files:
BFH- Attorney Van Rensburg Letter to CBCRA re High Court prospects 2023-10-08.pdf
BFH- Founding Affidavit 2023-05-29.pdf
BFH- Founding Affidavit Supplementary1.pdf
BFH- Founding Affidavit Supplementary2.pdf
BFH- Answering Affidavit Developer MAS SAM 7th Respondent.pdf
BFH- Answering Affidavit Mayor Hill-Lewis 3rd respondent and CCT Mr Marx Mupariwa 2nd respondent.pdf
BFH- Answering Affidavit Minister Rural Development and Land Reform 6th Respondent.pdf
BFH- Replying Affidavit to 6th respondent Min Rural Dev and 7th respondent Developer MAS SAM.pdf
APPLICANTS' HEADS OF ARGUMENT 8.11.23
Beachfront Hotel - Help prevent the destruction & desecration of the Camps Bay beachfront
The CBCRA's response to the judgement can be read here:
Further correspondence: Herewith an open letter from the city of Cape Town to the Camps Bay Ratepayers, published in the Atlantic Sun, not sent to the community direct:
The following is the judgment:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Beachfront Hotel - Help prevent the destruction & desecration of the Camps Bay beachfront
Please click on the link below to download the PDF (137 pages, 998kb)
Branch Code 201709
Account No 62550213400
Reference YOUR NAME and Beachfront Hotel
(Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers Association)
Tel: 083 653 6363
E-mail: campsbayratepayers@gmail.com
Blog: http://campsbayratepayers.blogspot.com
Herewith the APPLICANTS' HEADS OF ARGUMENT 8.11.23 on THE CAMPS BAY & CLIFTON RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER / THE CAMPS BAY BEACH HOTEL (PTY) LTD AND SIX OTHERS HIGH COURT CASE NO: 8640/2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sNKaxtAyzaOQ3_2ZgikVyIN2ZnOvLhny/view?usp=sharing
___________________________________________________________________________
Herewith the legal communication regarding the pending litigation challenge pertaining to the development of the proposed beachfront hotel:
Published on this blog 5 October 2023
Dear Sirs / Mesdames
THE CAMPS BAY & CLIFTON RATEPAYERS’ ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER / THE
CAMPS BAY BEACH HOTEL (PTY) LTD AND SIX OTHERS
HIGH COURT CASE NO: 8640/2023
1. We refer to the above and the pending litigation, wherein the Camps Bay & Clifton
Ratepayers’ Association challenges the legality of the City’s approval/s pertaining to
the development of a new hotel and restaurant building on the property known as Erf
3349 Camps Bay. This letter is addressed to you, at your specific request, to express
an opinion about your prospects of success in the pending litigation.
2. Firstly, we believe that you have a very good prospects of success. We are of the
respectful view that you should succeed to set aside the approval of the aforesaid
development. We shall proceed to set out, in short version below, some of the
primary reasons why we respectfully believe that you should succeed in Court.
3. The formal approval of the development was done on the basis that there should be
at least 120 (one hundred and twenty off-street) off-street parking bays provided for
the hotel and the restaurant. That approval went to the highest level and was also
the decision of the Executive Mayor of Cape Town (which is the highest planning
appeal authority in the City). Thereafter, in what appears to have been a form of
improper “off the record” (secret) meeting between the developer’s architect and 3
(three) planning officials of the City, they decided that the 120 (one hundred and
twenty) off-street parking bay requirement would not apply to this development. One
of these planning officials proceeded to recommend to the department dealing with
building plans that a building plan which only provided for 49 (forty-nine) parking
bays would suffice for the development. The building plan was approved on that
basis. Such approval was clearly unlawfully manipulated. To be lawfully approved, a
building plan must meet the requirements of the underlying planning approvals and
the law as it existed at the time that application was originally made for the planning
approval.
4. The municipal spatial development framework (“the MSDF”) of Cape Town
determines that a general height restriction of 10 (ten) metres applies to all buildings
across Camps Bay (since the imposition of that limitation). Item 190 of the City’s
Development Management Scheme (i.e. the zoning scheme regulations) stipulates
that no facade of any building in Camps Bay may exceed a height of 10 (ten) metres
above any specific point on the ground. The approved development of the hotel and
restaurant exceeds these limitations:
4.1 No height departure was granted to allow for a building which is higher than
10 (ten) meters.
4.2 The facades of the new building will be approximately 15 (fifteen) metres at
several points along the perimeter thereof, once constructed.
4.3 The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013 prohibits a
Municipal Planning Tribunal (“the MPT”) from approving any development
which is in conflict with the MSDF of a municipality. The MPT clearly breached
this statutory prohibition when it approved this development.
4.4 When the MPT approved the development, it set a maximum heights above
mean sea level for the new building. The approved building plans show that
this height limitation is exceeded.
4.5 A building plan cannot be approved which conflicts with existing law and/or the
underlying planning approvals for the development, as granted by the
Municipal Planning Tribunal (“the MPT”) and the Executive Mayor (as the
planning appeal authority).
5. Because the development is one for a hotel and restaurant, there are minimum
requirement applicable for loading bays to be provided. Such loading bays must be
of a minimum specific width and the headroom must also meet specific requirements
(to allow delivery vehicles which need larger bays to park). The approved building
plans show that only one loading bay is provided which does not meet either the
width or the headroom requirements. It is incomprehensible how a building plan for a
development of this nature could be approved, without proper provision being made
for deliveries. Hotels and restaurants require large numbers of deliveries on a daily
basis.
6. Also, there are minimum requirements which apply to a development of this nature
insofar as a refuse room is concerned. The amount of refuse produced by a hotel
and restaurant of this nature, will be enormous. The refuse room provided for this
development is far too small to accommodate the requirements of a hotel and
restaurant of this scale. There is no provision made for the sorting of refuse; only 24
(twenty-four) wheely bins can be accommodated; and the placing of the refuse room,
which is on a different level to the street, does not provide easy access to the street,
from which refuse removal is supposed to take place by the City. The Solid Waste
Department of the City did not support the approval of the building plans. Yet the
department responsible for the approval of building plans was informed, incorrectly,
that there was no objection to the draft building plans. Had the correct facts been
known, the building plans would not have been approved.
7. Victoria Road, which is the road onto which the hotel and restaurant will primarily
face, is a provincial main road. There is a 5 (five) meter building line set-back
applicable to that road. Only the Premier of the Western Cape can approve a setback
from the building line on Victoria Road. The Premier can legally do so, only
after plans are submitted to the Premier which show the purpose of the set-back and
the development. A relaxation of the building line was done by officials of the
provincial Department of Transport, who had no authority to do so, but even that
approval (on which the developer relies) lapsed years ago. Notwithstanding, the
building plan was approved with the support of the planning department of the City.
The department responsible for the approval of building plans was not made aware
of this legal requirement.
8. There are numerous other smaller technical requirements with which the building
plans and the planning approvals for the development did not comply. All these
issues are in the Court papers and will be argued when the matter does come before
the High Court for judicial review.
9. In short, based on the above, we are of the respectful view that you should succeed
before the High Court and that the development of the hotel and restaurant building
on Victoria Road, Camps Bay will not be allowed to proceed. The approval thereof
should be set aside and we are very positive about your prospects of success.
10. Please advise if you have any further questions.
Yours faithfully
VAN RENSBURG & CO
Per:
L J VAN RENSBURG
ATTORNEYS, NOTARIES, CONVEYANCERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF ESTATES
_____________________________________________________________________
PROKUREURS, NOTARISSE, AKTEVERVAARDIGERS, BOEDELBEREDDERAARS
Tel: (021) 713-2100 PO Box 249
Cell / Selfoon: 082-872-6340 BERGVLIET
7864
E-pos / E-mail: Leon@vrlegal.co.za 127 Main Road
BERGVLIET, 7945
Website: www.legalassistance.co.za /
www.vrlegal.co.za Datum / Date: 10/08/23
_______________________________________________________________
Director/Direkteur: Leon Jansen van Rensburg B.Juris, LLB, LLM, LLD (PU vir CHO)
Professional Assistants/Professionele Assistente: Vanessa Dean LLB (UNISA), Cornelia Jansen van Rensburg BA LLB (US)
Consultant/Konsultant: Sheila Camerer BA LLB (UCT)
U verw / Your ref:
Ons verw / Our ref: LJVR/pk/VRC0510
The Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers’ Association
CAMPS BAY
Via email: campsbayratepayers@gmail.com
Below are links pertaining to the proposed beachfront hotel in Victoria Road. Please click on the links to access the pdf files:
BFH- Attorney Van Rensburg Letter to CBCRA re High Court prospects 2023-10-08.pdf
BFH- Founding Affidavit 2023-05-29.pdf
BFH- Founding Affidavit Supplementary1.pdf
BFH- Founding Affidavit Supplementary2.pdf
BFH- Answering Affidavit Developer MAS SAM 7th Respondent.pdf
BFH- Answering Affidavit Mayor Hill-Lewis 3rd respondent and CCT Mr Marx Mupariwa 2nd respondent.pdf
BFH- Answering Affidavit Minister Rural Development and Land Reform 6th Respondent.pdf
BFH- Replying Affidavit to 6th respondent Min Rural Dev and 7th respondent Developer MAS SAM.pdf
APPLICANTS' HEADS OF ARGUMENT 8.11.23
____________________________________________________________________
HELP PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION & DESECRATION OF THE CAMPS BAY BEACHFRONT
The proposed new 101-room hotel on the beachfront has been approved by the City with 5 floors instead of the permitted 3 and a height of almost 15m instead of the permitted 10m! This is a disgrace on the part of the City, which, sadly, routinely approves such inappropriate development.
It also fills the entire site, with no side spaces on the boundaries, and is critically short of parking bays.
The development has no environmental permission and there are many other contraventions which have been established by the Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers Association (CBCRA) and its legal team.
As happened with the development at 22 Sedgemoor Rd, the developer and City tell us that the planning approval is all in order!
In the Sedgemoor matter, the High Court disagreed and interdicted any further work on the site in December 2021 (14 months ago) and that remains the current status – and will continue so until the developer is prepared to negotiate a solution that is acceptable to the neighbours and the community.
The CBCRA has a proven track record of stopping inappropriate development in Camps Bay for the benefit of all current and future owners of property and residents.
The CBCRA has, over the past few years, repeatedly opposed and appealed the decision-making of the City in this beachfront hotel matter – forcing it into many questionable planning decisions in order to favour the development. The City is notorious for its blind “development at any cost” stance.
The community gave generously toward this fight - and enabled the CBCRA to get to this juncture where every move by the City or developer is recorded and can be placed before a High Court judge for a review of those objectionable decisions. The CBCRA will soon make that application to the High Court to review and set aside the City’s planning decision to approve this monstrous blight on the built environment of one of the most beautiful areas in the world.
We need to stand up against the abuse of power by the City which feeds the greed of developers!
The community is not anti-development but insists that it must be sensitive and sustainable and within the development rules for the area – everything which this development is not!
From the above perspective, it is clear that this insensitive over-bulked monstrosity will even block the view of the mountain from the beach! Note how it towers over the existing Tigers Milk building from the side and the back.
We call on the community to stand together and back the CBCRA and local residents opposing the wholesale destruction of one of the most beautiful and visited beachfronts in the world – both financially and by joining the movement to ensure sensitive and appropriate development along the beachfront.
Please contact campsbayratepayers@gmail.com to offer your assistance and be included in our mailing address. Together, we can bring some sense back to the development of the beachfront and Camps Bay.
The CBCRA banking details are:
Bank First National Bank
CBCRA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)