MPT South Eastern

Resolution details

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that:

a. An administrative penalty of R 800 000.00 BE DETERMINED for the unauthorised land use in terms of Item 129 of the City of Cape Town Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015 in respect of Erf 4122 Hagley.

b. An administrative penalty of R 900 000.00 BE DETERMINED for unauthorised building work in terms of Item 129 of the City of Cape Town Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015 in respect of Erf 4122 Hagley.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The MPT APPROVED the application for the reasons set out in the Planner’s Report and agreed to the following changes:

Amend reason 6.3 as follows:

6.3 The entire property is utilized as a block of flats with associated uses. The cumulative extent of the unauthorised land use and unauthorised building work contraventions in this regard is substantial – the unauthorised land use measures 1729.5m2 in extent (180% of the property area), while the building work contravention area measures 925m2 in extent (96% of the site area).

Amend reason 6.4 as follows:
6.4 The gravity of the contravention is considered to be extremely serious, as it involves double storey habitable structures that accommodate a large number of people in 34 flats that have been erected without any land use or building plan approvals. This poses a serious threat to the health and safety of the occupiers, as well as on that of the surrounding property occupiers, as the relevant health, safety, fire and other social considerations have not been assessed.

Amend reason 6.6 as follows:

6.6 The conduct of the owner is unacceptable and cannot be condoned and warrants serious censure by the MPT

Add new reasons as follows:

6.7 In terms of paragraph 6.3 of the report, this applicant is a serial offender

6.8 The applicant’s explanations that this substantial building was erected because of the threat of land invasion is disingenuous and not credible. A development that complies with the DMS could have prevented land invasion.

6.9 Site inspections confirm the large impact of this building on surrounding properties whose owners were denied the opportunity to comment.

6.10 In view of all of the above, the MPT was unanimously of the view that a substantially larger penalty should be imposed

FOR INFORMATION: DYIBA / DE KLERK