MPT South Western

Resolution details

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that:

a. The application for deletion of restrictive title deed conditions, as set out in Annexure A, for Erf 98020 Cape Town at Rondebosch, BE APPROVED in terms of Section 98(b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

b. The application for amendment of restrictive title deed conditions, as set out in Annexure A, for Erf 98020 Cape Town at Rondebosch, BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015.

Annexure A

2. APPLICATION REFUSED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98(C) OF THE BYLAW:

2.1. Amendment of Condition C.3 from title deed T56819/2016 to allow two dwellings on any erf:

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The MPT APPROVED the application for the reasons set out below

1. The subdivision proposal is consistent with the Municipal Spatial Development Framework (the property is located within the urban inner core), the Southern District Plan and the Densification Policy, and indirectly supports the Inclusive Economic Growth Strategy.
2. Approval of the subdivision will have a positive socio-economic impact as it will result in additional dwelling units and freehold land ownership in a well located area.
3. The proposal to subdivide the property is compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not result in a change to the existing character of the area.
4. Although smaller than the erven in the immediate area, the resultant erven will fit in well with those in the broader area.
5. The subdivision will not have any impact on the biophysical environment.
6. The subdivision will not have a significant impact on external engineering services.
7. The subdivision will not have any impact on heritage.
8. The traffic impact will not be significant.
9. The subdivision proposal is desirable and will not impact significantly on existing rights.
10. The proposal to subdivide the property 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 social benefit/public interest to the wider community and to the individual owner outweigh any benefits to the beneficiaries of the restrictions.

Reason for REFUSAL as follows:

1. The 4 dwelling units on this property is inappropriate densification. Allowing two units on the newly created erven is considered inappropriate densification and out of character with the area.

FOR INFORMATION:
ACTION: J JAMESON / P HOFFA