Skip to content

Search

Menu

View MPT resolution details

View MPT resolution details

MPT South Western

Agenda item no

MPTSW 50/6/2020

Subject

WARD 62: APPLICATION FOR REZONING, DELETION OF TITLE DEED CONDITIONS, DELETION OF CONDITIONS OF A PREVIOUS APPROVAL, COUNCIL’S APPROVAL AND DEPARTURE IN TERMS OF THE CAPE TOWN MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY-LAW, 2015: ERF 797 CONSTANTIA, 9 BELLVUE AVENUE ID: 70466001 N FLORIS / P HOFFA

Meeting date

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Resolution

Refused

Date closed

Monday, June 29, 2020

Resolution details

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that:

a. The application for rezoning of Erf 797 Constantia from Single Residential Zone 1 to General Business Subzone GB1, BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015

b. The application for deletion of restrictive title deed conditions, as set out in Annexure A, for Erf 797 Constantia, BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

c. The application for deletion of conditions of an existing approval, as set out in Annexure A, for Erf 797 Constantia, BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

d. The application for a departure, as set out in Annexure A, for Erf 797 Constantia, BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

e. The application for Council’s approval, as set out in Annexure A, for Erf 797 Constantia, BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

AMENDED ANNEXURE A

1. APPLICATIONS REFUSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98 (C) OF THE BY-LAW:

1.1 Deletion of restrictive title deed conditions from title deed T87428/2005:

1.1.1 Condition C4(b) which reads: “It shall be used only for the purpose of erecting thereon one dwelling together with such outbuildings as are ordinarily required to be used therewith.”

1.1.2 Condition C(4)(c), which read: “No buildings or structure or any portion thereof except boundary walls and fences shall be erected nearer than 9.45 metres to any boundary of this erf subject however to the further restriction imposed by the Controlling Authority as defined in Act 21 of 1940.”

1.2 Deletion of conditions of an existing approval imposed in terms of the Townships Ordinance No 33 of 1934:

1.2.1 “It shall be used only for the purpose of erecting thereon one dwelling together with such outbuildings as are ordinarily required to be used therewith.”

1.2.2 “No buildings or structure or any portion thereof except boundary walls and fences shall be erected nearer than 9.45 metres to any boundary of this erf subject however to the further restriction imposed by the Controlling Authority as defined in Act 21 of 1940.”

1.3 Rezoning:

1.3.1 To rezone the property from Single Residential Zone 1 to General Business Subzone GB1.

1.4 Departure from the Development Management Scheme:

1.4.1 Item 137: To permit 81 in lieu of 143 on-site parking bays.

1.5 Council’s approval in terms of the Development Management Scheme:
1.5.1 Item 60(k)(ii): To permit parking located on the ground floor level to be 2.36m in lieu of 10m from Bellvue Avenue.

All other conditions are deleted

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The MPT REFUSED the application for the reasons set out below

1. The nature of the proposed activities and the scale of operations are incompatible with the low density surrounding residential properties and will have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.
2. The scale of the hotel in combination with the event facilities some of which are outdoors is inappropriate for the context within which the property is located.
3. The proposal does not comply with the locational and activity criteria with respect to the Guest Accommodation Policy.
4. The proposal to use the property as a function and events venue will significantly impact on existing rights of surrounding residential properties.
5. The rezoning of the property with it associated uses is regarded as an inappropriate land use management and statutory response to the receiving environment and is not considered to be a logical or appropriate statutory fit to this particular location.
6. The proposal has been evaluated in terms of Section 39(5) of the Land Use Planning Act 2014 and Section 47 of Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013, as set out above, and it is considered that the benefits to the individual owner of the removal do not outweigh the benefits to the surrounding owners and the wider community in retaining the restriction.
7. Following the reasoning above the application does not fulfil the desirability criteria contained in Section 99 of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

FOR INFORMATION:
ACTION: N FLORIS / P HOFFA

You have disabled JavaScript on your browser.
Please enable it in order to use City online applications.