CBRRA Erf 2743 Camps Bay Letter of objection to Application

18 March 2013

The Director: Integrated Environmental Management (Region B2)
Dept of Environmental Affairs & Dev Planning
Provincial Government of the Western Cape
Pvt Bag  X9083
Cape Town
8000
FAX:  021 4833098

Dear Sir / Madam
REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ACT, ACT 84 of 1967.

APPLICATION      LM5914 (21704)
APPLICANT          WILLEM BUHRMANN ASSOCIATES
OWNER                CAMPS BAY CORNER TRUST
ERF                    2743
LOCATION           3 CAMPS BAY DRIVE
SUBURB               CAMPS BAY

The CBRRA objects to this application.

There is exhaustive legal authority which prevents the Minister from removing restrictive title deed conditions except where it is expressly in the interests of the community. In this application, the need to amend restrictions to accommodate current (and accepted) usage is understood by the affected parties but cannot simply be achieved through wholesale expungement of conditions but rather by means of consultation with the affected parties to this application and the careful amendment to such conditions to suit specific criteria. For instance, certain business types will be unacceptable to the community and must be excluded from any future potential operation from the Erf. More to the point, the array of acceptable business operations must rather be specified.

The Western Cape High Court ruled, in the Camps Bay Ratepayers vs RBC Sub Eleven matter, that the Minister may not remove restrictive title deed conditions if it is not in the interests of the community (Griesel, AJ, as he was then). This is clearly a case where such removal is, in fact, only in the interests of the applicant and also not in the interests of the community. Other divisions of the High Court have handed down the similar rulings. The Court also ruled that this is a positive test and that the Minister may not expunge conditions if the result is merely neutral ie there must be a positive outcome for the community.

The Applicant has not attempted to show any such positive result.

If the Applicant wishes to engage with the community in this matter, the CBRRA is willing to facilitate such discussions and will withdraw this objection if there is a positive outcome to such engagement. In the alternative, the CBRRA requests an interview at the appropriate SPELUM or Subcouncil meeting that will be convened to consider this application.

Regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE
CHAIRPERSON
CBRRA contact:   Chris Willemse   Mobile 0836536363   Fax 021 4380703
cc       Mr Tinus Nyelele: The Director, Planning & Building Dev Management, Cape Town Region, City of Cape Town
FAX : 021 4194694

Builders damage railings in Geneva Dr, Camps Bay

30 April 2013

Hi Johan
This has been satisfactorily repaired.
Thanks for your kind attention to this matter.
Cheers
Chris

To: Johan de Beer
Subject: CBRRA: Railings Geneva Drive Camps Bay
Hi Johan
Herewith a photograph of the damage done to the handrails on Geneva Drive by the contractors at 39 Central Drive, Camps Bay. The house in question is the second dwelling at the top end of the erf.
If you require further photographs or written submissions from our side confirming that the bulk sand delivery trucks caused this damage, please let me know.
Have a good weekend.
Cheers
Chris Willemse
cnwillemse@gmail.com
0836536363

CBRRA Erven 749 & 750 Application for removals, subdivision and departures

CBRRA Erven 749 & 750 Application for removals, subdivision and departures


8 March 2013
The Director: Land Management (Region2)
Dept of Environmental Affairs & Dev Planning
Provincial Government of the Western Cape
Pvt Bag  X9083
Cape Town
8000
FAX:  0214833098

Dear Sir / Madam

REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ACT, ACT 84 of 1967, SUBDIVISION & DEPARTURES ito LUPO 15/1985

APPLICATION      LM6006 (220971)
APPLICANT          FRANCIS CONSULTANTS
OWNER                PETER MATS KLIPE
ERVEN                 749 & 750
LOCATION           2 ATHOLL RD
SUBURB               CAMPS BAY

The CBRRA strongly objects to this application.

Firstly, this application is only in the narrow financial interests of the Applicant. It is common knowledge that his attempts to sell the Erf and improvements thereon have been unsuccessful to date. Clearly, this is an attempt to achieve the same sale price by altering what is on offer to include the same house plus an additional plot. In fact, this option was specifically on sale at the “show day” held at the property on 10th March 2013.

Unfortunately, this subdivision will have an extremely negative effect on the area and the affected neighbours in terms of increased density without the concomitant statutory setbacks from the lateral boundary which will destroy the sightlines from the rear properties.

It must be pointed out that this applicant has not approached the community to discuss the future usage of the property and measures that will possibly improve the currently unacceptable situation – he simply hopes to head off the legal rights of the community in order that he may continue to abuse their rights for his own financial gain. It is our legal advice that this is unachievable in terms of case law, a point which will be dealt with later.

The Western Cape High Court ruled, in the Camps Bay Ratepayers vs RBC Sub Eleven matter, that the Minister may not remove restrictive title deed conditions if it is not in the interests of the community and especially if it is only in the narrow financial interests of the developer (Griesel, AJ, as he was then). This is clearly a case where such removal is, in fact, only in the narrow financial interests of the applicant and also not in the interests of the community. Other divisions of the High Court have handed down the similar rulings. The fact that so many property owners in the precinct have objected to this application confirms that the removals will not be in the interests of the community. Further, the CBRRA has been mandated by the community to resist this development in its present form. The Court also ruled that this is a positive test and that the Minister may not expunge conditions if the result is merely neutral ie there must be a positive outcome for the community. The Applicant has not even attempted to show any such positive result, clearly because there is not any. It may be argued that such densification serves the aims of various spatial development plans and whereas this point may appear convincing, the actual reading of the Act states that it must be in the interest of the community of which it is in favour. This includes only Brighton Estate Ext No 3 (Section1) which was established in 1939. Any other interpretation is merely opportunistic.

The aforegoing is further reinforced by the Land Use Planning Ordinance (15/85) which holds that desirability is the only criterion for the assessment in terms of that particular piece of legislation and which is applicable to this application. There is, again, no attempt by the Applicant to show any desirable outcome from this application, other than his narrow financial interest – which is only implied.
The fact that this proposal does not fit on the property and therefore requires departures and Title Deed removals evidences the inappropriateness of the design. This is simply a means by which the applicants wish to gain approval for over-developing a site for his profit - at the expense of the community. This has also been held by the Western Cape High Court to be reason enough for the Minister to refuse planning permission.

The High Court judgement (Case 6866/04 Bloubergstrand) handed down by Yekiso, J, has established that applications must conform with all applicable law before the relevant Authority can consider them. It is common cause that this application does not comply and as such cannot be considered until all affected parties have waived their rights to the concessions sought. Clearly, no affected parties have indicated that willingness and will continue to resist this application.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (in the True Motives vs Madhi case # 543/07) has also added that such a proposal must be considered ito s7 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, when the application does not conform with all applicable law. In this specific instance, the building will derogate from the value of affected neighbours’ properties if the removal/amendments of restrictions and departures are granted and therefore planning permission must be denied in terms of s7 b (ii). Granting such rights will derogate from the value of the neighbouring dwellings, as there will be loss of amenities of certain affected properties. The community has a right to enjoy the amenity of their properties and also have a legitimate expectation of the Minister not interfering with those rights, especially given the many rulings handed down by the WC High Court in similar matters.
In summary, this application is not sensitive to the surrounding area, will seriously derogate from the value of adjoining neighbours, is unacceptable to the community in its current form and the CBRRA requests that the Minister rejects this application in its entirety.

If the Applicant wishes to engage with the community in this matter, the CBRRA is willing to facilitate such discussions and will withdraw this objection if there is a positive outcome to such engagement. In the alternative, the CBRRA requests an interview at the appropriate SPELUM or Subcouncil meeting that will be convened to consider this application.
Regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE
CHAIRPERSON

CBRRA contact:   Chris Willemse   Mobile 0836536363   Fax 0214380703

cc        
Mr Kajabo Ernest Ngendahimana  : The Director,  Planning & Building Dev Management, Cape Town Region, City of Cape Town
FAX : 021 4194694

CBBRA Comments on the Draft Land Use Planning Bill

The Director: Environmental &Spatial Planning
Dept of Environmental Affairs & Dev Planning
Provincial Government of the Western Cape
Pvt Bag  X9083
Cape Town
8000

ATTN  Ms Chrizelle Kriel
PER e-mail: Chrizelle.Kriel@westerncape.gov.za

Dear Ms Kriel

COMMENT ON THE DRAFT LAND USE PLANNING BILL

The CBRRA has many concerns regarding the proposed legislation but to avoid repetition, strongly allies itself to the comments as noted by the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance in this matter.

Of specific concern to the CBRRA is s45 of the draft bill which deals with the removal of title deed restrictions. The CBRRA has been successful in numerous High Court applications to compel the Province and City to treat such restrictions as praedial servitudes, which may not simply be expunged, amended or relaxed without proper due process and subject to the stringent conditions of the Removal of Restrictions Act, as endorsed by the Court. For the Premier or Minister to now simply delegate that power to the Local Authority is both a dereliction of duty and unconstitutional.

Removal of title deed conditions must remain in their current domain and, in fact, need to be accorded the gravitas that the law bestows upon them. Any reference to the removal of title deed conditions must be deleted from this draft bill as it is covered in the Removal of restrictions Act and legally cannot (and certainly should not) be circumvented by Provincial legislation.

A general concern is that NGO’s and Civics are effectively excluded from all due process. This will definitely result in a Constitutional Court challenge if enacted as is. It is interesting to note that the current DA-led Provincial Government is attempting to introduce a lack of transparency in this bill that it so loftily challenges on behalf of the SA citizens’ rights in the so-called “secrecy bill” debate in the National Assembly. It is essential that registered NGO’s and Civics, who represent all walks of society (and are often the only voice of ordinary citizens) have their right of representation endorsed by legislation. It will be sad day for our Constitution when legislation favours short-term development profits over the rights of the citizenry – albeit that the Premier has stated that she intends favouring developers with preferential fast-track service and marginalising the so called “serial objectors”. This is clearly unconstitutional and foolhardy.

Regards

CHRIS WILLEMSE
CHAIRPERSON
Mobile 0836536363   Fax 021-4380703
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––


From: Chrizelle Kriel
Subject: RE: CBRRA Comment on Land Use planning bill
Date: 11 March 2013
To: Chris Willemse




Good day

Thank you for the time taken to comment on the draft bill.  It will be discussed by the drafting team and if there is any uncertainty or if there is a need to discuss specific issues mentioned by you, we will contact you.

Regards,
Chrizelle Kriel Pr. Pln
Chief Town & Regional Planner
Directorate: Environmental & Spatial Planning
Department Environmental Affairs & Development Planning

1st Floor Leeusig Building, 1 Dorp Street, Private Bag X9086, Cape Town, 8000

Tel:  021 483 0765
Fax: 021 483 4527
E-mail: Chrizelle.Kriel@westerncape.gov.za
Website: www.westerncape.gov.za/eadp

New July 2012 Municipal Property Revaluation - What do you do now?

YOUR NEW JULY 2012 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY                  
REVALUATION  - WHAT DO YOU DO NOW ?

PUBLISHED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE
BY THE CAMPS BAY  RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (CBRRA)

The City Council of Cape Town has revalued all the  approximately 800 000 properties in the Cape Town Unicity for its latest 2012 Municipal General Valuation (GV2012)  which was carried out on 1 July 2012.

The City’s Valuation Office has recently posted its revised draft valuation of your property on the City’s website www.capetown.gov.za and you will already have received or will shortly be receiving in the post a notice from the City officially notifying you of its GV2012 revaluation of your property with a request that you either accept it or object to it before the end of April 2013.
 
What can / should you be doing now that you have received your new draft rates revaluation ?

It is very important, as a first step, that you read and fully understand the extensive notes accompanying your revaluation entitled “What you  need to know for the 2012 Valuation Roll”.

Since 21 February 2013 you have been able to access the City’s website details of your own property.

Alternatively, you can visit one of the City’s seventeen information centres as listed in your new revaluation covering letter.

While there you  can access the “Valuation Attribute Data” for your property: which will enable you to check that the residential details used for the valuation of your property are correct (i.e. that it is not listed as having a swimming pool if it does not have one, etc.) and you can access the localities of sales in your area which you can use for your objection should you elect to make one.

You  should now be establishing the factors / characteristics of your valuation should you feel that you have been overvalued.
 
Typical examples could be :

• A Council  registered water course (river!) and immense rocks on your property which eliminate your  ability to develop further on your property as owners around you can with  double / second dwellings, granny flats and the like. 
• The presence of a large overloaded Provincial registered trunk road (say a suburban main road) on your front boundary which has loud and dangerously speeding traffic including tourist and My-City buses on it and causes you difficulty in accessing / leaving your property by car for some  hours during rush hours. 
• The exposure to high winds and possible harm from fires in adjacent public open spaces. 
• A City electrical or drainage servitude running through your property. 
• A lack  or loss of views  compared with surrounding properties.
• Steeply sloping and /or irregularly shaped sites inhibiting the ability to develop them properly or  taking advantage of the available view.
• A south-facing house.
• Excessive distance from shops, schools, churches, beach etc. necessitating wheeled transport for  every journey.
• Alternatively, the immediate closeness of dense business areas with undue density of traffic and noise.
• No on-site garages

If you have not received your revaluation within a short time, or cannot find it on the City’s website, the onus is on you to visit the Council Valuation Department or an information centre to obtain it, because the end objection submission date will not necessarily be altered if you do not do this.

Should you decide to object to your new property revaluation in the document which you will obtain from the City, the  City will inform you as to where it has opened seventeen information centres which will assist  you in the compilation of your objection. At these information centres, you  will be able to ascertain the sales amounts and other  details of the  properties near your property to enable you to make an accurate comparison between such sold properties and your property.

Should you decide to approach a Valuer for  professional advice, first negotiate a fee quotation (probably on an hourly rate  or a percentage of the saving which is achieved basis) before investigating with him / her as to whether your  contention that the revaluation is too high is valid or not. If the Valuer  disagrees with you, you have at least been given a quick and reasonably  inexpensive professional opinion upon which you can decide whether to proceed  with your objection or not. Should you be advised to or should you decide to proceed, you should then appoint the Valuer to assist you with your objection to the City on the official objection form.
 
Estate Agents are also able to assist you with  your objection and can help you considerably by presenting you with their written assessment of what your property could have sold for in July  2012 and assist you with the sales prices of properties in your vicinity around that date.
 
The objection document is daunting, so  CBRRA therefore suggests that you do not submit an objection without a technically  correct motivation which is best prepared with professional assistance.
 
The  South African Institute of Valuers can assist you with names of Valuers (Address c/o J.J.Hofmeyr & Sons, 13 Piers Road, Wynberg, 7800. Telephone  021 7611803).  Alternatively look up the Yellow Pages.

Should you have submitted an objection to the City’s revaluation of your property,  and the City rejects your objection by not agreeing to your applied-for lower revaluation,  and you are not in agreement with the City’s response, you are then entitled to appeal to the Valuation Appeals Court (VAC) to state your case and attempt to lower your valuation. The VAC is an independent legal entity appointed by the Provincial Government and its decisions are final.

Should the City not agree initially with your objection, it is obliged to
supply you with its reasons for having done so before you decide to continue
your appeal to the VAC. Again should you decide to continue your appeal, you are well advised to do so with the professional assistance of a Registered
Valuer.

Your objection / double objection process may well last longer than July
2013, when your first adjusted 2012GV rates bill is due to be sent to you.
Should your objection / appeal process not have been finalised by this date,
continue to pay your rates based on the current rates bills you have been
receiving.  Do not stop your payments.  Once your revised revaluation has
been finalised between you and the City, it will adjust the new rates bills
to reflect this finally agreed revaluation and you will have to pay in any
shortfall plus interest at that time.
 
Remember that if you live in a sectional title apartment block, you will
again be billed separately  and directly for your unit and not in your levy
which used to reflect a  proportion of the overall building rates bill but no
longer does.
 
Should your valuation have increased, this does not necessarily mean that
your rates bill will escalate pro-rata to the valuation increase.
 
This is because the  variation in the total overall value of all properties in the Unicity since  July 2009 will probably mean that the Rate in the Rand may hardly be adjusted in this 2012 GV year and may even be reduced. The current recession may have had its effect on the new valuations, but this movement will differ from one suburb to another depending on the situations and market attractiveness of such suburbs which
is reflected in the valuation.

It could well happen again in this 2012GV that the new rates bills in July
2013  may result in lower rates bills in some areas and much higher rates
bills in others.

Remember that the increase in your revaluation reflects the increase over the three years since the 2009GV. Therefore, if your increase is, say, 15%, this means an average increase of 5% per annum since the 2009GV which, under the present state of the property industry is probably a fair reflection of your market value and, accordingly, it will not make sense to object to your 2012 GV.
 
For the next few years until the  next GV, probably in 2015, your  new
revaluation will remain constant (unless it is adjusted by a  supplementary
valuation in due course, which the City is entitled to do)) and your future
rates bill increases in ensuing years will be based only on the subsequent
annual increased Rate in the Rand applicable to all properties.
 
One way or the other, be aware of your rights and start  preparing to be
possibly paying more rates than your present rates bills from July 2013
onwards, the extent of which will only be revealed to you after the new Rate in the Rand is announced by the City when it  announces its 2013 overall budget.
 
Chris Willemse
Chairperson
CBRRA

From: "Dr Mark Vella ND"
Subject:
FW: EO13-0162 - Wedding - Camps Bay High School - 17 March 2013
Date: 05 February 2013


Hello all

Please find attached event application

Not much detail given

Please send your feedback or comments by this Friday 8th Feb. If I don’t
hear from you I assume all's good

Kind thanks

Mark Vella
Camps Bay Events Co-ordinater on behalf of the
Camps Bay Policing Forum


From: Alicia Hendricks [mailto:Alicia.Hendricks@capetown.gov.za] On Behalf Of Events Permit
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:43 PM
Good day all

Please see attached and below for your information and feedback.

Kindly forward the required comment to BUSI KWISOMBO by Monday, 18 February
2013.

Kindly forward to any relevant role players that may have been excluded from
the list.

Kind Regards,

Alicia Hendricks
Tel : 27 21 417 4035
Fax: 086 576 1580
City of Cape Town
Film and Events Permit Office
E-mail: alicia.hendricks@capetown.gov.za

Download application ‹‹here››

Request for Applications for Grants