https://www.atlanticsun.co.za/news/club-evicted-15717268
Friday, 29 June 2018
Thursday, 28 June 2018
MyCiTi bus driver hailed a hero
MyCiTi bus driver Siphelo Maqubela is Sea Point resident Sharon Russak’s hero for finding and returning her purse which contained her jewellery, including her diamond wedding ring and earrings, as well as cash, credit cards, her driver’s licence and her identity document.
Ms Russak had accidentally dropped her purse when she got out of her car on Main Road, Sea Point around 5pm on Monday June 11. Mr Maqubela, who was on duty driving the 108 route from Hout Bay along Sea Point Main Road to the CBD, noticed the purse lying on the ground next to a parked car and decided to stop the bus and pick it up.
“I didn’t open the purse immediately, I continued with my route and when I eventually opened it and saw the jewellery, I actually became scared and knew I had to return it to the owner,” said Mr Maqubela.
Mr Maqubela said he does not have Facebook so he asked one of his passengers to try and find the owner on Facebook using her name from the ID.
The passenger then messaged her via Facebook to let her know that her purse had been found and she needed to contact Mr Maqubela.
Ms Russak at the time had not realised that her purse was gone. “After my appointment, I saw a Facebook message to please contact someone with regard to my purse. At first I thought maybe I was somehow pick-pocketed because how could a bus driver have my purse,” she said.
Ms Russak’s husband Steve then made contact with Mr Maqubela and they arranged to meet each other at the MyCiTi bus stop in Camps Bay, as Mr Maqubela was making his way back to Hout Bay.
“He returned the full contents of my purse but, most importantly my diamond wedding ring, another ring and valuable earrings, which are of sentimental value to me. Siphelo, thank you, thank you and bless you for your honesty,” said Ms Russak.
On Wednesday June 20, mayoral committee member for transport and urban development, Councillor Brett Herron, handed over a certificate of gratitude to Mr Maqubela at the Civic Centre MyCiTi station. At the handover, Ms Russak said her husband was initially upset when he heard that she had lost her purse because it contained her wedding ring.
The couple have been married for 23 years laughed when Mr Maqubela jokingly told them he saved their marriage. “I like to help people. I always ensure that I return people’s belongings to them. Our passengers need to… know they can trust us,” he said.
https://www.atlanticsun.co.za/news/myciti-bus-driver-hailed-a-hero-15717277
Thursday, 21 June 2018
Court rules against City - 96 Camps Bay Drive
Brett Herron. Picture: Jason Boud/African News Agency (ANA)
The Western Cape High Court has ruled in favour of the application by the Camps Bay and Clifton Ratepayers’ Association (CBCRA) to have reviewed and set aside, a decision by the City to remove title deed restrictions applicable to 96 Camps Bay Drive and approve plans for a block of four apartments.
In his report, delivered at a public meeting of the CBCRA on May 7, chairperson Chris Willemse, explained that the erf was zoned GR2, which allowed for multiple dwellings and taller buildings. The title deed restrictions, however, did not allow for this type of development.
Mr Willemse explained that in 2015 existing legislation had changed, with the enactment of the Spatial and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) at national level, Land Use Planning Act (LUPA) at provincial level and the Municipal Planning By-Law (MPB) at local level.
The Removal of Restrictions Act was repealed and planning decisions at local level devolved upon a Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT). Mr Willemse accused the City, its planners and those in private practice, of exploiting the situation by entertaining applications that removed all relevant title deed restrictions from the deed, allowing single dwellings to be converted into multiple units.
The argument from the City and the MPT was that all case law protecting property rights fell away with the new laws and that they had total discretionary powers in deciding such matters. CBCRA disagreed.
Mr Willemse said the MPT had rejected all the objections from the CBCRA and surrounding neighbours, and approved the development. The CBCRA then lodged an appeal with Mayor Patricia de Lille, but she dismissed their appeal in July last year.
“By this stage, inexplicably, the developer was already busy with construction on site,” said Mr Willemse.
It was then that the CBCRA filed an application before the Western Cape High Court to review and set aside the MPT’s decision, the City’s dismissal of the appeal and the planning approval, on November 18 last year. This initial application by the CBCRA for an urgent interdict was set down for November 22, but was postponed at the request of the developer.
The matter was heard by the High Court on Monday June 18, with Judge Siraj Desai ruling in CBCRA’s favour.
Mr Willemse said the City had submitted to the court that the CBCRA should pay the City’s costs, on the basis that the CBCRA had insisted that the matter be heard rather than being settled, but the counsel for the City could not explain why it had failed to file its notice to abide by the decision of the court until late April 2018.
The City was ordered to pay CBCRA’s costs incurred in bringing the application and the developer, Schaefer Partnership, was ordered to pay its own costs.
“In our opinion, this is damning of the conduct of the City, as, usually, costs are borne jointly and severally by all parties on the losing side. It has been established by the court that the City is entirely responsible for the whole mess. Will they hold anyone accountable or will they simply continue with business as usual?” asked Mr Willemse.
The City’s mayoral committee member for transport and urban development, Brett Herron said: “All parties involved in this matter agreed that this decision should be set aside and the City notes the order relating to costs.”
The director of the Schaefer Partnership, Friedrich Schaefer, declined to comment on the matter.Sinazo Mkoko
_____________________________________________________________________________
NOTES FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS WILLEMSE
In the Western Cape High Court this morning, 19 June 2018, Mr Justice Siraj Desai found in favour of the CBCRA’s application to have the decision by the City of Cape Town, to remove title deed restrictions applicable to 96 Camps Bay Drive and approve plans for a block of 4 apartments, reviewed and set aside. Therefore the current construction on this site is without approved plans and construction must cease.
The Judge further ordered that the City pay the legal costs of the CBCRA and that the developer, the Schaefer Partnership of Camps Bay, pay its own costs.
This costs order goes to the degree of culpability of the City in its deficient planning approval process - something that the CBCRA has complained of for many years and which the DA-led administration simply ignores.
Some questions posted to Chris Willemse, chair of the CBCRA, from Sinazo Mkoko, Reporter - Atlantic Sun:
1. The matter was first heard in court on May 28, 2018 and the ruling was delivered today the 18th of June?
- No, the matter was heard and decided on the same day. Judge Desai was not interested in hearing argument in the matter as it was common cause that the City’s application and planning approval process was fatally flawed. He only wanted to settle the issue of costs. The initial application by the CBCRA for an urgent interdict was set down for 22 Nov 2017 but postponed at the request of the developer. By agreement, the postponed case would then be heard in late February as an expedited review case, with certain guarantees put in place that would not allow the developer to claim prejudice for work completed after this date, if the review was successful. This might sound quite mundane, but developers always claim that they have suffered severe prejudice of the cost of completed work if their plans are set aside at a later date. In any event, due to the unavailability of a judge and then other legal delays, the matter came before the court yesterday.
2. The application was filed after the MPT rejected objections from CBCRA and the Association appealed to the City's mayor which was declined?
- Yes. The MPT decided in favour of the application on 6 Dec 2016 and the CBCRA subsequently appealed this decision to the Executive Mayor of Cape Town. After an incredible initial mismanagement of the appeal process, the mayor dismissed the CBCRA appeal in late July 2017. By this stage, inexplicably, the developer was already busy with construction on site.
3. Please assist with the exact dates when this application was filed?
- After initial representations to the developer, and appeals to the City, were rebuffed, the CBCRA filed its application for the review and setting aside of the MPT’s decision, the Mayor’s dismissal of the appeal and the planning approval before the WC High Court on 18 Nov 2017, for an urgent hearing on the 22 Nov 2017.
4. Reading through your report at the last public meeting, you were confident that you were going to win this case?
- Of course, it is never wise to first-guess the outcome of any case involving planning matters. However, the City planners had made so many fundamental procedural errors in the processing of the application - all in favour of the developer - and shown what the CBCRA considered incredible bias against the community in dealing with the application, that it did seem very likely that the court would grant the relief sought by the CBCRA. I must also add here that Ms Lana Stacey, an affected neighbour, took the responsibility of standing up for her rights and joined the application as a co-applicant. The CBCRA is indeed very grateful for her support and willingness to be involved in a matter that affects all ratepayers in Camps Bay - and, by implication, the ratepayers of Cape Town.
5. I understand you're briefing the association about the ruling today, how are the members taking it?
- Obviously, the members that have been briefed are both satisfied with the ruling and relieved that this is over. That the City is happy to force its ratepayers into continuous litigation to defend their rights is iniquitous.
6. Also, do you have an online link to the exact ruling by Judge Desai? It would be great to quote him.
- Three points to bear in mind:
The City will, in all likelihood, claim that this was just a minor technical oversight and that the review was based on a narrow procedural point. They would then be ignoring the voluminous set of papers citing chapter and verse of the shortcomings and bias of the City planners, which the City has refused to argue against in open court.
Then there are the merits of the case and the fact that this DA-led administration is quite content to expropriate citizens rights without compensation or agreement. Restrictive title deed conditions have been held by all divisions of the high Court of South Africa as praedial servitudinal rights and are, in effect, real property rights.
So it is quite bizarre that the political party, the DA, fighting all others against the introduction of EWC in the country, is completely in favour of such expropriation when it suits its agenda of development at any/all costs in the city of Cape Town!
Friday, 1 June 2018
Public Safety & Security Meeting 5 June 2019
|
|
Thursday, 31 May 2018
Talent garden
Anton Luiting and Duane Alexander at the launch of LAMTA.
When Camps Bay’s Theatre on the Bay reopens, it will not only be showcasing talent, but also helping to develop it.
The theatre closed on Saturday April 21, for renovations which are expected to continue for four months (“Brief curtain close”, Atlantic Sun, April 19).
Among the changes at the venue will be the inclusion of the Luiting Alexander Musical Theatre Academy (LAMTA) which was launched at the beginning of April and will be based at Theatre on the Bay.
Musical theatre industry luminaries Duane Alexander and Anton Luiting launched the academy with the support and endorsement of theatre impresario and owner of Theatre on the Bay, Pieter Toerien.
The academy aims to train performers to master what they call the “triple threat” – the ability to sing, dance and act.
Mr Luiting and Mr Alexander are passionate about this and in 2010, established the Musical Theatre Workshop to provide a triple-threat training to children from as young as five years old.
“We have had the privilege and pleasure of working on a number of International ‘blockbuster’ musicals in the past 17 years and so we’ve experienced first-hand what the requirement is to be a part of today’s musical theatre industry. We hope to impart what we’ve learnt from the incredible directors, choreographers, musical directors, designers and technicians to a new generation of performers,” said Mr Luiting.
LAMTA graduates will leave the academy with training led by the cream of the crop in their respective fields, as well as skills in arts administration and theatre technology that will enable them to be not only performers, but “art-entrepreneurs” who can manage successful careers and work in a number of theatre and arts-related fields.
“Being a ‘triple-threat’ performer is not just important, it is essential. Equal ability in all three major theatrical disciplines is first prize as it increases one’s employment opportunities, but even having one exceptional strength and above-average skill in the other two disciplines makes one a viable commodity and highly employable,” said Mr Alexander.
Mr Luiting and Mr Alexander have already put together what they describe as an “A-Team” of lecturers but there will also be guest lecturers who will share their expertise.
Nationwide auditions for entry into LAMTA will take place in June. Only 24 students (12 men and 12 women) will be accepted for the 2019 intake.
“Having had the privilege of travelling the world on many big international productions, we’ve come to the realisation that Cape Town is without a doubt one of the most exciting and remarkable cities in the world. We are so grateful to Mr Toerien for his support and endorsement and we are honoured to be continuing his legacy and contribution to the South African industry,” said Mr Luiting.
Application for the removal of title deed restrictions ito s82 & s83 15 the Meadway
The District Manager, Table Bay District
Development
Management, Transport & Urban Development Authority
City
of Cape Town
Cape Town
8000
ATTN
Ms Juliet Leslie
Dear Ms Leslie
APPLICATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF TITLE DEED
RESTRICTIONS ito s82 & s83 of THE CAPE TOWN MUNICIPAL BY-LAW
CASE ID 70371487
APPLICANT TOMMY
BRUMMER TOWN PLANNERS
ERF 207
LOCATION 15 THE MEADWAY
SUBURB CAMPS BAY
The CBRRA strongly objects to this
application.
Insofar as the basic, generalized merits of
the application are concerned, please note the following:
The CBRRA has met with the affected neighbours
and their opposition to the proposed building was strongly registered. It is
therefore clear that this application fails the test for being in the interests
of the community, in terms of applicable law.
Specifically, this application is opposed on
the following grounds:
· The proposed structure, with its many contraventions of the Title
Deed, is clearly inappropriate to the area and is merely an attempt to
over-bulk the site to the exclusive benefit of the applicant.
· The application, if successful, will result in a loss of privacy,
views and the amenities of living in a generally single dwelling neighbour for
the surrounding property owners, which is unconstitutional.
· The City of Cape Town’s Densification Policy encourages erven in areas
such as this to be extended from single to double dwellings – there is
certainly no mention of increasing the density from one to five units. Further,
the Policy requires concomitant increase in infrastructural services to
accommodate such densification. It is common cause that both the overloaded
road system and inadequate sewerage system will not be upgraded by the City. The
application is therefore non-compliant with policy.
· The deletion and amendment of so many title deed conditions (9 in
total) raises constitutional issues. It is well known that the City considers
that the enactment of new laws such as SPLUMA, LUPA and the MPBL give it tremendous
powers over the real rights conferred on property owners through the
restrictive title deed conditions in the various Deeds of Transfer applicable
to the township. It is the legal advice of the CBCRA that this is simply wrong
in law and that the City is expropriating real, constitutional rights of
citizens without proper due process or, importantly, compensation. This is in
clear conflict with s25 of the Constitution of South Africa. It is trite to
contend that a benefit to one owner (the applicant) will result in a similar
benefit to an affected party who enjoys rights which this application proposes
to nullify. It is clear that the benefit to that one party (the applicant)
invariably, as in this case, is prejudicial to the rights of affected parties
in the township. The CBCRA reserves its rights to lead legal argument in this
regard at the appropriate forum.
· Further, the restrictive title deed conditions applicable to the
subject Erf were registered in favour of the owners of property in this township
and, as such, may not be summarily removed without the express permission of
those affected parties. The various divisions of the High Court of South Africa
have exclusively - and repeatedly – ruled that title deed restrictions,
applicable to any property in a township, are praedial servitudinal rights and may not be amended or expunged by
mere executive action if, inter alia,
a positive benefit to that community is not shown. In this case, no
positive benefit to the area has been established by the applicant.
· In general, the number of contraventions of applicable law for which
this proposal is applying is evidence enough of an inappropriate development,
which is only in the short-term financial interests of the applicant – and
totally prejudicial to the rights of the adjoining property owners and the area
in general. This proposal is one to destroy the rightful amenities of the
owners of property in Camps Bay in favour of the financial benefit of a
developer, amongst other negative issues.
The Western Cape High Court ruled, in the
Camps Bay Ratepayers vs. RBC Sub Eleven matter, that the Minister may not
remove or amend restrictive title deed conditions if it is not in the interests
of the community (Griesel, AJ, as he was then). The learned judge went further
and ruled that the test must also be a positive one – in other words, the
applicant must show a positive benefit for the community when submitting such
an application. Other divisions of the High Court have handed down similar
rulings. The applicant has failed to show any benefit, of any kind, to the
community and this is clearly a case where such removal is actually only in the
narrow financial interests of the developer, which, the Court ruled, could not
sustain an application such as this.
The case law so established devolves upon the
MPT in terms of legal precedent, as this is not simply a planning law issue but
a constitutional property issue, as more fully described above.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (in the True
Motives vs. Mahdi case # 543/07) has also added that such a proposal must be
considered ito s7 of the National Building Regulations and Standards Act, when
the application does not conform to all applicable law. S7 reads as follows:
7 Approval by Local Authorities in Respect of Erection
of Buildings
(1) If a local authority, having considered a
recommendation referred to in section 6(1)(a)-
(a) is satisfied that the application in question
complies with the requirements of this Act and any other applicable law, it
shall grant its approval in respect thereof; [Para. (a) substituted by s. 4 (a)
of Act 62 of 1989.]
(b) (i) is
not so satisfied; or
(ii) is satisfied that the building to which the
application in question relates-
(aa) is to be erected in such manner or will be of such
nature or appearance that-
(aaa) the area in which it is to be erected will
probably or in fact be disfigured thereby;
(bbb) it will probably or in fact be unsightly or
objectionable;
(ccc) it will probably or in fact derogate from the
value of adjoining or neighbouring properties;
(bb) will probably or in fact be dangerous to life or
property, such local authority shall refuse to grant its approval in respect
thereof and give written reasons for such refusal:
It is noted that the City has consistently
held that the provisions of s7 are not in question at this stage of an
application – and that once granted, the departures actually trump the
provisions of s7 in the first instance! The CBCRA has always contended that
this “smoke and mirrors” approach by the City is legally challengeable and, in
effect, a disingenuous approach of favouring development at all costs.
Recently, in case 6561/2015 out of the Western
Cape High Court, the Honourable Mr Justice Binns-Ward ruled that the local
authority must consider s7(1)(b)(ii) even if it has been found that the
planning application complies with all applicable law. The CBRRA contends that
this regulation will render the application fatally flawed, if properly
assessed.
In this specific instance, the unjustifiable
increase in the number of units, loss of amenities and resultant traffic
increase, which, in fact, does not comply with applicable law, will derogate
from the value of the affected neighbours’ property and the public amenity of
protected views and privacy and, accordingly, must be denied. Professional
opinion as to such derogation of value will be presented to the MPT if
required.
The CBRRA requests an interview at the MPT
committee meeting, which will be convened to decide this application.
Regards
CHRIS WILLEMSE
CHAIRPERSON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)