From: Chris Willemse
Date: 22 March 2013 12:55:41 PM SAST
To: Ossie Gonsalves
Cc: Chrissie Phillips
, Barry Varkel , Tony Stern , Caro Macdonald , Mark McCain , Marga Haywood
Subject: Fwd: Erf 58 Letter to Ossie
Hi Ossie
Further to your e-mail dated 12th Feb and the attached photographs that have been in circulation.
CBRRA is having great difficulty in understanding the situation.
You claim to have visited the site and conclude that all work is progressing as per the approved plan.
With reference to the attached photos, which predate your visit, please could you explain the following:
Photo 1 & 2
A planter has been built that isn't reflected on the plans.
Photo 3
This clearly shows the intent of the developer. There has been no attempt to even disguise the fact that he intends using the deck over the garage as a trafficable area.You will note that the finished screed level of the outside patio level is the same as that of the garage roof. This is incompatible with section C-C of drwg 203. It is, of course, illogical that the "turf roof" would be at a higher level than the adjoining patio - if only from a waterproofing and storm water runoff point of view. However, the very important argument raised by CBRRA and the neighbours - that this clearly was going to be a trafficable deck, with concomitant overlooking features - seems to have escaped you.
Photo 4
This shows the early part of the courtyard construction. However, the retaining method used is of the Terraforce type - not gabions as indicated on section A-A of the approved drwg 203.
This, in itself, is not a big deal. However, it is clear that a gabion is being erected against the house wall and, very conveniently, exactly in line with the disputed rear door from the garage (which is not indicated on any approved plan but is on the site construction plans).
Photo 5
This shows the gabion complete but short of the finished level of the garage roof and outside patio (as indicated on the approved plans) but conveniently framing the right hand side of the garage rear door reveal.
It is quite clear from this that the gabion will be used to "define" finished ground level at a later stage to circumvent the problem of the 6m height restriction that will be triggered by the direct entrance from the garage to the courtyard at basement level. For future reference, the WC High Court dismissed this type of trickery and set aside the planning approval granted by your department for the massive apartment block on the corner of Queens and Kloof Rds in Bantry Bay.
In any event, the courtyard exceeds the 6m height restriction and was only approved by means of a departure, for which the neighbours' non-objection was obtained by Bradbury and Long through duplicitous means. Any amendment to the courtyard must trigger a further departure, for which the City is obliged to advertise.
The reality on the ground currently is that a timber deck has been laid from the outside patio over the garage roof to the illegal planter. This is totally illegal and non-compliant and the CBRRA trusts that it is not going to be suggested by the City that this is part of the roof structure. As has been intended by the developer from the outset, the garage roof will be a trafficable area and the developer will probably place a few battens to represent the rail/balustrade at the time of final inspection. The City was obliged in terms of s6 of the Zoning Scheme (under which these plans were assessed) to refuse planning permission if there was an attempt to circumvent the intent of the Scheme. The City has failed the community yet again.
The frustration for the community is that the City allows illegal building work and then routinely approves such illegality retrospectively - despite the best efforts and early warnings by that community. In other words, the City cannot be trusted to administer and enforce its own laws. Sadly, in this case, you are on record as saying this would not happen - and even went as far as threatening to enforce s40 of LUPO in this regard (in May 2011).
Despite your contention that the City had assisted in ensuring that a compliant building was being erected on the Erf, the record shows that the City has failed to ensure that this developer complied in any way - he has simply built what he wants and submits retrospective plans reluctantly and only in the face of community protest. The community and in particular, Ms Phillips, has had to go to extraordinary lengths to even get the City to acknowledge that large portions of this building were being constructed illegally, post facto. Predictably, the City's response was to give retrospective planning approval each time. The only illegal item that was ultimately removed was the concrete pergola - and the reasons for this, CBRRA is reliably informed, lie somewhere between substandard concrete strength and the need for a departure which would have seriously delayed the project (even further). You have indicated that you will invite the representatives of the community to inspect the latest set of plans. Please advise when this will take place as it is essential that you receive community input prior to considering such plans.
Cheers
Chris Willemse
cnwillemse@gmail.com
0836536363
