Dear Camps Bay and Clifton Residents
The rather arrogant letter from Greg Scott of Scott Partners, regarding the proposed new beachfront hotel, begs a rebuttal.
However, the CBCRA will not stoop to the personal insult style that Mr Scott has employed in his denunciation of the CBCRA and its goals.
So, let’s consider the facts:
- The special regulations for Camps Bay are 3 storeys and 10m façade height: That is the legal situation and Mr Scott is surprisingly quiet on why he needs to design a building that is 5 storeys and almost 15m high in places. He claims that his plans comply – but that is only because the City has granted massive departures to allow a building that is almost 160% larger than allowed by the special planning conditions pertaining to Camps Bay.
- It is claimed by Mr Scott that the CBCRA and the 94 individual residents who opposed the scheme “lost” against this development 3 times. Interesting point, as there was only a Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) decision and an appeal to the Mayor: That’s two. In any event, MPT decisions are always in favour of development and the Mayor partially upheld the community’s appeal (regarding the parking requirements). These are the actual facts.
- As a footnote to the above issue: The developer applied for a departure to provide only 58 parking bays in lieu of the required 120, which the MPT, of course, granted. On appeal by the community, the Mayor upheld this point and refused to grant the departure. Very conveniently for the developer, the City subsequently changed the regulations regarding the parking requirement to require only 50 bays! More on this when the application is launched.
- More to the point, the CBCRA understands that the City will, ultimately, always support and approve any type of development that increases the rates base for that property and help developers amass large profits – regardless of the affect on the community or the values of adjoining properties. The community’s opportunity for a fair hearing only comes when the matter is taken to court. That is where the CBCRA has been totally successful in over 50 cases over the years.
- Mr Scott is invited to visit the closed-down site at 22 Sedgemoor Rd and reflect on the following:
The developer had a Land Use Management approval and a City-approved plan to which he was building – but it was gained by the usual preferential treatment afforded to developers by the City. The CBCRA and many neighbours took this matter to the High Court and won the case. This highlights two important issues: - City-approved plans are not very reliable when considered in open court.
- The CBCRA is not some vigilante group, acting out of personal prejudice and on a crusade, as Mr Scott would have you believe, but a volunteer group which acts with the community in the best interests of Camps Bay and seeks to enforce the rule of law. By his own admission, Mr Scott’s plans are not compliant with the regulatory requirements for Camps Bay.
- It is further suggested that the CBCRA should allow democratically and qualified persons decide the future built form of our suburb. Maybe Mr Scott is unaware that no locally elected person may be involved in planning matters and as for the appointed officials, who simply ignore the rights of ratepayers, little can be said. In any event, let the residents of Camps Bay have a say in matters relating to their suburb, or is that too democratic for the commercial interests that seek to control our future?
- It is useful that Mr Scott has attached his “architect’s impression” perspectives to his missive. Clearly, with his commercial interest in this development, it will be to calm the nerves of anxious residents. He has won over a few – but not the many who understand how these things work. In his first graphic impression, on p1, he indicates a front elevation of the building, with an outline of the adjoining Tigers Milk building. The CBCRA rendition, of which he complains so bitterly, shows the very same relationship between the two buildings. However, he does not show the hotel as extending behind Tigers Milk, as it is on his approved plans. The rest of his perspectives do not appear to help his case much as they speak to a massive block that attempts to utilise every square millimetre available – and the extra 60 – 70% non-compliant bulk offered by the City.
- If one has regard to his first graphic impression (p1) and Image 1 (p3), then it is clear who is trying to mislead. The former shows the mountain just visible above the Tigers Milk building and clearly lower than the height of the new building. Given that the new building will extend behind Tigers Milk, then it is obvious to any neutral observer that the view of the mountain will be blocked!
- Image 1, and the following images, then, is a clear attempt to deceive – or today’s students might have to re-learn the height of Table Mountain!
- The CBCRA presented a peer review of the developer’s Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to the MPT. Although it was a very detailed report, which raised serious concerns about the assumptions and conclusions of the TIA, the MPT simply didn’t even read it!
- This site offers a wonderful opportunity to create a building that is appropriate to the area and could be iconic to the beachfront. However, it appears as if commercial concerns have outweighed any such sensibility.
- It is claimed that the new building is no higher than the old Place on the Bay (POB). Given that the POB had an illegal fourth floor (and therefore height), this is an interesting departure point: Relying on previous illegal work to justify non-conformity with the current regulations of 3 storeys and 10m height restrictions. Further, he has “overcome” the 10m restriction on the Fairways side of the building by introducing a 1m “step” in the façade and thereby claiming 2 facades, totalling almost 15m in height (ie each “façade” not higher than 10m). There is no provision in the regulations to split a façade in this manner, just a ploy by the City planners to assist with a non-compliant building application. In any event, it will present as a 15m building from the street, which is obviously unacceptable.
- On a lighter note, the CBCRA does agree with Mr Scott that there was little aesthetic value in the previous POB building – but having demolished it, why erect another monument to commercial greed?
- No application or approval in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) was produced in this application. Any work that involves the excavation of more than 5m3 of soil, within 100m of the high-water mark, requires environmental authorisation.
- For the sake of brevity, we will not further labour this matter and trust that the residents of Camps Bay will see through the veil of deception that cloaks this development – and fully support the neighbours and CBCRA in stopping it in its present form.
Best regards
Chris Willemse
Chair
Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers Association
CBCRA
Tel: 083 653 6363
E-mail: campsbayratepayers@gmail.com
Blog: http://campsbayratepayers.blogspot.com
Please refer to Greg Scott's letter and the previous CBCRA letter below:
http://campsbayratepayers.blogspot.com/2023/02/beachfront-hotel-greg-scott-replies-to.html
http://campsbayratepayers.blogspot.com/2023/02/beachfront-hotel-help-prevent.html
Please also refer to the historic data on this matter as recorded on our blog:
http://campsbayratepayers.blogspot.com/2020/07/proposed-rezoning-4-fairway-avenue.html
No comments:
Post a Comment