CBCRA RESPONSE TO COURT DECISION & CITY OF CAPE TOWN OPEN LETTER ON THE BEACHFRONT HOTEL CASE

THE BEACHFRONT HOTEL CASE: 

CBCRA RESPONSE TO COURT DECISION & CITY OF CAPE TOWN OPEN LETTER

CBCRA is disappointed by the High Court's dismissal of its case against the Camps Bay hotel development. 

Historically, the association has successfully held the City accountable for unlawful or inappropriate planning decisions. 

CBCRA challenged this development over reduced parking, height violations, and missing loading bays. 

The High Court ruled against CBCRA, questioning the community’s right to object to dubious planning decisions. 

The City’s favouritism toward developers threatens community interests, property values and rational development. 

The City circulated an unsigned letter to the press which contained threats and falsehoods. 

CBCRA remains committed to appeal, confident in protecting community rights. 

The Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers Association (CBCRA) is disappointed by the recent High Court judgement delivered by Ms. Justice CMJ Fortuin, which dismissed our case against the ongoing hotel development on the Camps Bay beachfront. The handing down of the judgment took almost seven months, allowing construction to continue. Most municipalities throughout the country find ratepayer associations to be a nuisance, as they offer the only real oversight to Executive performance, or lack thereof. The CBCRA has successfully held the City accountable for its planning decisions over many a decade, with the effect of protecting Camps Bay from the worst excesses of uncontrolled development.

If the City can destroy ratepayer associations, using public funds to fight against the very people who pay the rates, then the ideal of property ownership will become a dystopian march into the abyss of not knowing when rampant development and a rapacious City will destroy your prime asset with non-conforming development. Ratepaying citizens will find themselves isolated without ratepayer associations and it is essential that these organisations be fully supported by their communities. 

 The CBCRA took the matter to Court after any meaningful interaction with the City proved fruitless – and primarily because of the following: 

Parking Concerns 

The hotel development was initially required to provide 120 off-street parking bays, as per City regulations. Despite community objections, the developer sought to reduce this number to 58. In August 2021, the Mayor supported our stance, affirming the need for 120 parking bays. However, in January 2023, we discovered that building plans had been approved with only 49 bays, following a secret meeting between the City and the developer of which the CBCRA was unaware. The City opposed our court challenge, arguing that the CBCRA and other residents had no standing to challenge the parking bay requirements. The City offered no cogent reason for this but the High Court sided with it, dismissing our concerns. 

Building Height Violations 

Camps Bay is protected by an overlay zone that limits building heights to three storeys and facades to 10m. This development approved by the City, exceeds these limits, with five storeys and facades far above the allowable height. The City justified this by claiming that if the façade includes a small “kink” every 10m, the height limit is satisfied. This interpretation, however, undermines the intent of the overlay zone and sets a dangerous forerunner for future inappropriate planning approval.
Further, the City claimed that it could approve 5 storeys instead of the 3 allowed because the previous building on the site was at the same height. However, the previous building’s top floor was illegal (no planning approval) and covered a tiny portion at the rear of the site. The controversial approval for the new building allows such height over 60% of the entire site! As there is no precedent allowed in planning law, such rationalisation is irrelevant.
Our concerns that the development would block mountain views and create an unattractive structure on the beachfront were dismissed by the Court, which inexplicably ruled that we lacked standing to challenge the building's bulk. One only has to stand on the beachfront, in front of this massive edifice, to see the detrimental visual impact. 

Loading Bays 

The new hotel, a large facility requiring extensive daily deliveries, was approved without the necessary loading bays as required by City planning laws. When we challenged this in court, the City argued that the CBCRA had no standing to object to the absence of proper loading bays, even claiming that a hotel is not considered a business premises. The court upheld the City’s argument. 

Public Representation in Planning Decisions 

The CBCRA has long advocated for public representation in municipal planning decisions, a role removed from city councillors by national legislation in 2015. Our current case highlighted the need for such representation. Before going to court, we sought support from the Mayor, who had, at the CBCRA AGM in 2022, indicated he would back our position. However, once in court, the Mayor opposed us. The City’s resources were overwhelmingly used to support the developer’s case, while the CBCRA was painted as anti-development and unreasonable. 

The City's Response 

(Read the letter here) On 24 August 2024, the City issued an open letter, triumphantly stating that the High Court's costs order against the CBCRA would be enforced to its full extent. This letter was intended as a warning to any ratepayers’ association challenging the City or developers on planning issues that they will be financially punished. Every ratepayer in Cape Town should take note of this abuse of power by the City.
Further, the City's call for "positive engagement" with its planning process rings hollow given its disregard for the community's concerns. Despite the CBCRA and 94 individual residents submitting well-reasoned objections, all were rejected by City officials and the Municipal Planning Tribunal. Not one comment or objection was upheld! 

Moving Forward 

The CBCRA remains committed to appealing the High Court's decision, believing that our rights and those of the community will ultimately be upheld. The City’s current approach, which prioritizes development at the expense of community interests, threatens the value of property ownership. We urge the City to engage meaningfully with its citizens and administer planning decisions which reflect the needs and rights of all stakeholders, not just developers. We look forward to pursuing this matter further in the Appeals Court, confident that justice will prevail in the end. 

Chris Willemse 

Chairman: CBCRA