Skip to content

Search

View MPT resolution details

View MPT resolution details

MPT South Western

Agenda item no

MPTSW 34/11/2016

Subject

APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION, CONSOLIDATION AND DEPARTURES: ERF 54154 & 54155 CAPE TOWN AT CLAREMONT, 8 MONTROSE AVENUE/CASE NO:70266098 P ABSOLON/P HOFFA

Meeting date

Tuesday, November 08, 2016

Resolution

Approved

Date closed

Friday, November 18, 2016

Resolution details

a) The Municipal Planning Tribunal South-western Panel APPROVES the application for consolidation of Erven 54154 & 54155 Cape Town at Claremont, in terms of Section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015, in accordance with plan LUM/00/54154;

b) The Municipal Planning Tribunal South-western Panel APPROVES The application for subdivision of Erven 54154 & 54155 Cape Town at Claremont, in terms of Section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015, in accordance with plan of subdivision LUM/00/54155, subject to the conditions contained in Annexure A, attached to the departmental report dated 2016-10-25.

c) The Municipal Planning Tribunal South-western Panel APPROVES the application for departures, as set out in Annexure A, attached to the departmental report dated 2016-10-25, for Erven 54154 & 54155 Cape Town at Claremont, in terms of Section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The proposal is not inconsistent with the character of the area and will not have a negative impact on the neighbouring properties.
2. The architectural style of the proposed dwelling houses is compatible with those of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed erf sizes are compatible with those of the broader area.
4. The level of densification proposed is contextually appropriate.
5. The proposal is compliant with the Municipal Spatial Development Framework, the Southern District Plan and the Cape Town Densification Policy which emphasises the need for densification in well located areas like this.
6. Adequate on-site parking is provided and the proposal will not have a negative impact on traffic.
7. The proposal will arguably have a lesser impact than what could be developed as of right.
8. The proposal will not have a negative heritage impact.
9. There is adequate infrastructural capacity for the proposal.
10. The proposal will not have a negative socio-economic impact.
11. The proposal will not have a negative impact on the streetscape.

ACTION BY: P ABSOLON/P HOFFA



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