MPT South Western

Resolution details

RESOLVED that:

a. The application for departures, as set out in Annexure 1, for Erf 54717 Cape Town at Claremont, BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

b. The application for consent in terms of a title deed condition, as set out in Annexure 1, for Erf 54717 Cape Town at Claremont, BE APPROVED in terms of Section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

ANNEXURE A is amended as follows:

The departures that were applied for are linked to the plans drawn by Jeanne Du Toit Architectural Design, drawing numbers 0118-02, 0118-03 & 0118-04, all Rev E, all dated 11/08/2020.

1. APPLICATIONS REFUSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98 (c) OF THE BYLAW

1. Departures from the Development Management Scheme:
• Item 22(c): To permit the portion of the second dwelling, located within 3m from the eastern common boundary, to be 6.56m in lieu of 4m in height from base level to the top of the roof.
• Item 22(d): To permit a second dwelling to be setback 0m in lieu of 6m from the eastern common boundary.
• Item 22(d): To permit a second dwelling to be setback 4.5m in lieu of 6m from Highwick Avenue.
• Item 53(b): To permit a second dwelling with a style that is not similar to the architecture of the main dwelling house.

2. APPLICATIONS GRANTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98 (b) OF THE BYLAW

2. Council’s consent in terms of Condition B.2 in title deed T37826/2004 to permit 2 dwellings in lieu of 1.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The MPT APPROVED the consent for the reasons set out below:

1. The principle to establish a second dwelling is compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not impact negatively on the uses of the area.
2. The principle to establish a second dwelling is consistent with the Southern District Plan, the Municipal Spatial Development Framework and the Densification Policy and indirectly supports the Economic Growth Policy.
3. There are numerous second dwellings in the area and such use will not be out of keeping with the area.
4. A second dwelling amounts to very moderate and contextually appropriate densification.
5. The health, safety and wellbeing of the surrounding community will not be compromised by the establishment of a second dwelling.
6. The establishment of a second dwelling will not have a negative impact on existing engineering services.

The MPT REFUSED the application for departures for the reasons set out below:

1. Notwithstanding the positive aspects of a second dwelling in terms of policy compliance and contextual appropriateness (as expressed above) the proposal is considered excessive in both height and bulk directly on the common boundary given the existing 6m building line or 4m height limit for outbuildings
2. The proposed mitigating measures are not considered to adequately address the impact on the abutting property.

FOR INFORMATION:
ACTION: N FLORIS / P HOFFA