07 July 2019
The City
Manager
C/o The Table Bay
District Manager
City of Cape Town
Your ref: MPTNW 17/06/19
Case ID # 70401171
Dear Sir
APPEAL IN TERMS OF S108(1) OF THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN’S MUNICIPAL PLANNING
BYLAW 2015 (“MPBL”) AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL (“MPT”) DECISION OF
04 JUNE, 2019 TO APPROVE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 6 UNITS IN RESPECT OF
ERF 860 CAMPS BAY AT 14 QUEBEC RD, CAMPS BAY
The CBCRA hereby registers its appeal against the decision of the
MPT as set out in the MPT ruling of 04 June, 2019 (“the MPT decision”), ref. ID
70401171 on the grounds set out herein.
The Chair of the MPT failed to grant an interview to the CBCRA in
terms of s120(11) of the MPBL. The CBCRA made a timeous request for such
interview on the 29th May 2019, which was purportedly not received
by the MPT secretariat. Despite follow-up e-mails, indicating that such request
was made, the request was refused by the Chair of the MPT.
However, a recall message was sent to the CBCRA on 31 May 2019 at
07h54, which indicates that there was some sort of receipt of the CBCRA e-mail
by the MPT secretariat, which reads as follows:
From: MPT Oral Hearings
Subject: Recall: Interview: Case #
70401170 Erf 860 Camps Bay, 14 Quebec Rd
Date: 31 May 2019 at 7:54:07 AM SAST
To: CBRRA Campsbayratepayers
MPT Oral
Hearings would like to recall the message, "Interview: Case # 70401170
Erf 860 Camps Bay, 14 Quebec Rd".
Disclaimer:
This e-mail (including attachments) is subject to the disclaimer published at:
http://www.capetown.gov.za/general/email-disclaimer Please read the disclaimer
before opening any attachment or taking any other action in terms of this
e-mail. If you cannot access the disclaimer, kindly send an email to
disclaimer@capetown.gov.za and a copy will be provided to you. By replying to
this e-mail or opening any attachment you agree to be bound by the provisions
of the disclaimer.
The e-mail thread, confirming the above, is attached below. It
also includes an e-mail from Ms Alma Horn, a member of the CBCRA Manco,
confirming that the e-mails were copied to all members of the Manco at the time
of sending to the MPT. Copies of such confirmation will be submitted, if
required. It is noteworthy that the e-mail sent by the MPT to confirm the
“no-receipt” was sent at 10h35, a few hours after the recall message.
It is clear that this e-mail was timeously sent and equally clear
that the City mishandled the request. On this ground alone, the appeal must
succeed.
The MPT further erred, in the opinion of the CBCRA, in finding
that the application does not materially or adversely affect the rights of
surrounding properties.
The increase in traffic is one such issue. Currently, Quebec Rd is
developed with 12 properties and therefore the increase in density, by the
addition of a further 6 units, is quite considerable.
In fact, a potential 50% increase of traffic in a cul-de-sac which is already experiencing vehicular congestion, is
reason enough for the refusal of the application in terms of s99(3)(f) & (i)
of the MPBL, read in conjunction with s99(2)(d) & (e) thereof.
It is submitted that the MPT failed to properly assess this issue and it could
have, at the very least, ordered or requested a traffic study on the area.
The decision by the MPT falls to be set aside on this ground, too.
The MPT also failed to consider the import of the recent Concourt
decision, which has made it abundantly clear that s7(b)(ii) of the NBR&S
Act applies, in its entirety, to all applications. This includes the trigger of
the derogation of value of a neighbouring property, which the MPT did not consider
in its deliberations.
As the unsuccessful appellant in this matter, the City must now
abide by the ruling of the Concourt and properly consider all applications in
terms of the law. The City must also refrain from “silo” type thinking and not
simply approve land use applications, knowing full well that the Building
Control Officer will be faced with an impossible task when final plan assessment
takes place, given that the triggers of s7(b)(ii) effectively prevent him or
her from approving the submitted plans.
It is further argued that this application is not policy
compliant. The City’s Densification Policy recommends that, in predominantly
single dwelling precincts such as Quebec Rd, the density of land usage be
increased from one unit to two. This application is for 6 units, therefore an effective
increase of 500%!
As such, the application is non compliant with s99(2)(c) of the MPBL and the
appeal must, accordingly, succeed.
The CBCRA respectfully requests that this
appeal against the MPT decision be upheld.
Regards
CHRIS WILLEMSE
CHAIRPERSON
