739 CITY OF CAPE TOWN ISIXEKO SASEKAPA STAD KAAPSTAD RerorTto: MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL ITEM NO MPTSW23/08/19 WARD 73: APPLICATION FOR DEPARTURE IN TERMS IN TERMS OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY-LAW, 2015: ERF 73876 CAPE TOWN, 24 CHATEAU CIRCLE, CONSTANTIA Cais, [reine PAbiolon [on 484 7738 Souher Tas = [etew 1, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Repent Bie 05/08/2019. Propefty descripiion Ef 73676 Cape Town Properly address 24 Chateau Circle, Constantia Application components / description . For a departure, as set out in Annexure A, fo. peril the extension fo the dwelling house at first floor to be setback Om in lieu of 3m from the north eastern common boundary, as per the Sie Development Pian (SDP) attached as Annexure C. SiS extent = | 740me Curent zoning Single Residential Zone 1 Current land use. Dwelling house Overlay zone applicable Constantio-Tokai Local Area Overlay Zone No 1 objection was received. Recommended decision Refusal Approval in part & Refusal in part 2, BACKGROUND FACTS 2.1 In etfor, an on-site notice was not erected as is required in terms of the Notification Operational Policy for Land Use Development Applications for the departure Om from a boundary, above ground level. In this regard it must be noted that the application was advertised to all affected property owners by means of regislered mail, and it is unlikely that now erecting the on-sile notice will have a different outcome to the public participation compared to what ihe current outcome is. Section 106(2) of the MPBL states thai "the City may MPI Repod Template ~8 June 2017 Poge 1 of 93.1. 740 at any time, of its own accord or on application by an applicant or interested Party, upon good cause being shown, condone an efor in the procedure Provided that such condonation does not have material adverse impact on or unreasonably prejudice any party", as is the case in this instance. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S MOTIVATION The applicant's motivation of the proposed development [see Annexure D) may be summarised as follows: The proposed first floor addition (master bedroom and en-suite) will not adversely affect any neighbours. The proposed addition will not result in adverse traffic implications. The proposal will nol adversely affect any engineering services. The proposal will have no impact on the safety and well-being of the neigbours and surrounding community. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ‘Applicable Dates / Comments v 18/04/2019 18/04/2019 15/04/2019 See Paragraph 2.1 above. v 1 [Objection peiition * [Support /No objection Comments z: Watd Councillor sponse Sutcoms, 7 Summary of the objection received The objection received in respect of the application (see Annexure E) may be summarised as follows: The proposal will result in an invasion of privacy. The plan should be amended so that no doors or windows face directly conto the objector’ ert, Erf 73875 already has a double storey construction which provides for ifs privacy. ‘Summary of applicant's response to public participation MPT Report Template ~8 June 2017 Page 2 0f9741 * The applicant has elected not to respond to the objection. 5. BACKGROUND TO PROPOSAL Description of the area / surrounding land uses 5.1 The subject property is located within in an area characterised as being a middle income, suburban, residential neighbourhood consisting of large single and double storey dwelling houses set on medium to large sized properties. The area is well treed. Zoning 5.2 As can be seen on Annexure B, the subject property as well as most of the surrounding properties are zoned Single Residential Zone 1. Property description 5.3 The subject properiy contains a large single storey dwelling house. There is also & garage and a swimming pool on the subject properly. The existing garage is located on the street and common boundaries. Proposed development 5.4 The proposal is for a departure, as set out in Annexure A, fo permit an extension fo the dwelling house at firs floor to be setback Om in lieu of 3m from the north eastem commen boundary as per the Site Development Plan (SDP) attached as Annexure C. 6 PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT 6.1, Consideration of criteria in terms of Section 99(1): 6.1.1, Compliance with the requirements of the MPBL: + The application complies with the basic requirements of ihe MPBL. + As there is no unauthorised land use or building work that contravenes the MPBL related fo this application, no administrative penalty is required. 6.1.2 Compliance or consistence with the municipal spatial devetopment framework: + The proposal is not inconsistent with the Municipal Spatial Development Framework. The property is in an area designated as a consolidation area. 6.1.3 Consideration in terms of Section 99/3) of the desirability of the following criteria: * For the reasons given in Section 6.2.4 below, this Depariment is of the opinion that the proposal is desirable. ‘MPT Report Template —8 June 2017 Poge 30196.2, 6.2.1, 62.2. 6.2.3. 6.24. 742 Would approval of the application have the effect of granting the property the development tules of the next subzone within a zone? N/A 1am satisfied that the decision making criteria in Section 99(1) have been complied with. | am satisfied that the considerations in Section 99(3) have been assessed and that the proposed land use is desirable. Consideration of criteria in terms of Section 99(2): Any applicable spatial development framework: The proposal is not inconsistent with the Municipal Spatial Development Framework. The property is in an area designated as a consolidation area. The proposal is noi inconsistent with the Southem District Plan. The property is in an area designated as urban development. Relevant criteria contemplated in the DMS: N/A Applicable policy or strategy approved by the City to guide decision making: None applicable. Consideration in terms of Section 99(3) of the extent of desirability of the following criteria: Socio-economic impact: The proposal wil have a minor positive socio-economic impact in that the approval of the proposal will create employment opportunities during construction stage and it will also result in investment on the property and an improved housing arrangement. Compatibility with surrounding uses: The proposed additions are residential in nature and are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The heighi of the building is only 6.513m to the top of the roof {excluding the chimney). Only a small portion of the building requires the depariure, and the length of the building requiring the departure along the common boundary is relatively short, and will not affect the privacy of Erf 73875, The portion of the building requiring the depariure is directly above the existing building. Impact on the extemal engineering services: The proposal will not have a negative impact on existing engineering services. MPT Report Templote 8 June 2017 Poge + afd. 743 4 eatth and wellbeing of the _surroundiny cornmunity: The propesal will not impact on the safety, health or wellbeing of neighbours. Although not directly related to the deparfure, it must be noted that the proposal will result in improved surveillance of the street. . Impact on heritage: + The proposed development will not have any impact on heritage. The existing building is less than 60 years of age and the property is not located in heritage protection overlay zone. {. Impact on the biophysical environment: * There will be no impact on the biophysical environment. + The property is not environmentally sensitive and the new building work will be directly above the existing building. g. Transport considerations: + There will be no traffic impact. h. Mitigating conditions: * None are necessary. 62.8. Impact on existing rights: The proposal will not impact significantly on existing rights. lf the property were developed to its full maximum extent in terms of its existing DMS rights, it could arguably have a significantly greater impact on the neighbouring properties compared to the current proposal. The height of the building is only 6.513m to the top of the roof {excluding the chimney}, which is substantially below the 11m height permitted. Only a small portion of the building requires the departure, and the length of the building requiing the departure along ihe common boundary is relatively short, and will nol affect the privacy of Erf 73875. The portion of the building requiring the departure is directly above the existing building. 6.2.6 Other considerations prescribed in relevant national or provincial 63 63.1 legislation: The proposal is consistent with the development principles contained in Section 7 of the Spatial Planning & Land Use Management Act, 2013 ‘and Section 59 of the Land Use Planning Act. 1am satisfied that the decision making criteria in Section 99(2) have been complied with. Regarding the objection: The new building work is setback a substantial distance [well in excess of 15m) from the objector's property. The proposal will not have any impact whatsoever on the reasonable expectation of privacy MPT Report Template ~ 8 June 2017 Poge 5 of 9TAP 744 Considering thal, as of right, a triple storey building with windows facing the objector's property could be erecled 3m from the common boundary with the objector's property. REASONS FOR DECISION Reasons for the recommended decision for approval relating to the application for a departure may be summarized as follows: The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not haye a significant impact on neighbouring properties. The proposal is not inconsistent with the Municipal Spatial Development Framework and the Southern District Plan, The proposal will have a positive socio-economic impact. The proposal will no’ have a negative heritage impact. The proposal will not have a iraific impact. The proposal will not have any impact on the biophysical environmeni. If the properly were developed to ifs full maximum extent in terms of its exisfing DMS rights, it could arguably have a significanity greater impact on the neighbouring properties compared to the current proposal. The height of the building is only 6.513m to the top of the roof (excluding the chimney), which is substantially below the 11m height permitted. Only a small portion of the building requires the departure, and the length of the building requiring the departure along the common boundary is relatively short, and will not affect the privacy of Erf 73875, 7.1.10 The portion of the building requiring the departure is directly above the existing building 7.1.11 The approval of this application does not significantly impact on existing rights and is desirable. 8. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, itis recommended thai: 8.1 The application for a departure, as set out in Annexure A, for Ert 73876 Cape Town, be approved in terms of Section 98{b) of the Municipal Planning By-Law, 2015. ANNEXURES Annexure A Application details Annexure B Locality plan / public participation map. Annexure C Site Development Plan. Annexure D Applicant's motivation Annexure — Objection MPT Report Template 8 June 2017 Page 6 of 9Annexure F Title deed Annexure G List of relevant parties [Pb Section Head Name: P Hoffa Tel no: 021 4447724 Date: 2019-08-05 MPT Report Tempicte ~ 8 June 2017 745 [Pla Acting District Manager Name: P Hoffa Tel no: 021 444 7724 Daie: 2019-08-05 Poge7 of?: 746 ANNEXURE A In this annexure: “Cily” means the City of Cape Town "The owner" means the registered owner of the property “The property" means Erf 73878 Cape Town, 24 Chateau Circle, Constantia "Bylaw" and “Development Management Scheme” has the meaning assigned thereto by the City of Cape Town Municipal Planning Bylaw, 2015 {as amended) “Item” refers to the relevant section in the Development Management Scheme. CASEID: 70429116 The departure is linked fo the plans drawn by ByDesign Architecture, with drawing numbers Y & L-01-01 Rev 2 and Y & L-01-02 Rev 2, both dated 27/08/2018. 1. APPLICATION GRANTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98 (b) OF THE BYLAW: Departure from the Development Management Scheme: 1.1 Item 22(d): to permit the dwelling house extension to be setback Om in lieu of 3m from the north easiem common boundary. MPT Report Template ~8 June 2017 Page 8 ot?Vy 7387073870 6 SR1 73869 ‘sri sei 7387873878 Lagend torsos sso resists [7 Psow Tee Dees Restien ress 3 Cenfeet TL Jossom sites TE loorre civ com) prot Gkaxognserars, STAD kaaPathe[atom Te Osea Reene2on ane i Jesoom senias city oF care TOWN, TSIKEKO SASEKAPA STAD KAAPSTAD=] SSS: SSS Hh A paid 2 wooid ist ®ANNEXURE D eae) NSTANUAY on MOTIVATION PERMANENT COMMON BUILDING LINE DEPARTURE, 1. The proposed ‘st floor addition [master bedroom and ensuite] will nt adversly affect any neighbours. We will have consent from all affected neighbors. 2. The proposed 1st floor addition and balcony will produce no adverse trafic implications. ‘There aro no adverse implications to engineering services. There is no impact on the safety, health and well being of the neighbors and surrounding community. 3. The swimming poot will will also have no adverse effects on the neighbors, There are no negative implications on engineering services. There Is also no impact on the saftey, health and well being of the neighbors and surrounding commumity. Kind regards Byron Russell BYDESIGN architecture 083 886 2270Kurt Fisher From: Comments, Objections Southern 752 Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 4:21 PM ‘To: Jo-anne Smith Ce: Kurt Fisher ‘Subject: FW: Application for departures ERF 73876 Application Number 70429116 From: Mark Wellard (MEA) [mailto:Mark Wellard@dimensiondata.com] ‘Sent: 14 May 2019 04:12 PM To: Comments_Objections Southern ‘Subject: Application for departures ERF 73876 Application Number: 70429116 \tt: District Manager oe Full Name: Mark Lawrence Wellard Interest in the application: Owner and resident for 28 years of ERF 73871 ‘Address: 10 Blackwell Lane, Constantia Contact email: mark.wellard@dimensiondata.com Mobile number: +27829400049 Ihave viewed the proposed plan submitted for erf 73876 and strongly object to the double storey addition as per below: The proposed double storey master bedroom /en-suite windows, glass doors and balcony, directly overlooks my (private garden, swimming poo! and sunroom. To respect the privacy, as much as possible, of the adjoining properties the double storey extension should be constructed on top of the existing ground floor master bedroom, en-suite and other 2 bedrooms without any windows or doors in the wall that directly faces my ERF 73871. The windows and deors required can face inwards to ERF 73876. ‘To respect the privacy of the adjoining ERF 73877 the construction should have no windows or small smoked glass ‘windows in the wall facing ERF 73877. ERF 73875 already has a double storey construction which provides for ERF 73875's privacy. Copy from the plan where the double storey extension should be constructed on top of the existing ground floor master bedroom, en-suite and other 2 bedrooms to respect the privacy of the adjoining properties:Balustrading to be 1000mm min. 1m.AFFL.with max. 100 mm openings, 753 And Glass Balustrading will be Saftey SVALLPLA Glazed ‘ z Last rec Be GROUND FLC Tacs Beas ~ segards, Mark Wellard 10 Blackwell Lane Constantia 7806 Mobile +27829400049 This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer: "http//www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer" Lopared by me :YANCER — DIANE DAPHNE KEMP eoceNalve | 7 . TTT _ aT & aa tema ts serve fat, section, Act VERBIND MORTGAGED Wk For RR. 8 000002380 /2016 2K -OF 30 Ak ie ee persan DEED OF TRANSFE! BE IT HEREBY MADE KNOWN THAT ION DAVID CHISHOLM appeared before me, the Registrar of Deeds at Cape Town, the said appearer, being duly authorised thereto by a power of attomey signed at Panorama on 28 October 2013 and granted to him by 4. PAULUS FRANCISCUS XAVERIUS SANDERS Identity Number 741006 6137 08 9 Married Out of Community of Property 2, SONJA SANDERS Identity Number 761129 013 08 7 Married Out of Community of Property . ah Page 1 of 4. 755 And the Appearer declared that his principal had on 25 September 2013 truly and legally ‘sold, the undermentioned property by Private Treaty And that he in his capacity aforesaid, did by these presents, cede and transfer to and on behalf of ‘ 4. LEANNE CINDY PARASRAM Identity Number 820305 0243.08 0 Married Out of Community of Property 2 YOLIN GOVENDER {Identity Number 840516 5073 08 4 Married Out of Community of Property their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, in full and free property ERF 73876 CAPE TOWN, IN THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CAPE DIVISION, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE IN EXTENT 740 (SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY) SQUARE METRES FIRST TRANSFERRED BY DEED OF TRANSFER NUMBER 135396/1980 WITH GENERAL PLAN TP NUMBER 8574 RELATING THERETO AND HELD BY DEED OF TRANSFER NUMBER 117777/2011. A. SUBJECT to the special conditions referred to in Deed of Transfer Number 13951 dated 21" December 1903 and Number 4391 dated 10" June 1912 respectively, B. SUBJECT FURTHER to the following condition contained in Deed of Transfer Number 4480 dated 23 May 1938, imposed for the benefit of the Council of the Municipality of the City of Cape Town ‘That the owner of each lot, whether the present owner of the property or any future owner shall be obliged to allow the drainage or sewerage of or lots to be conveyed over such lot tf deemed necessary by the Council and in such manner and posttion as may from tme to time be reasonably required by the Council C, SUBJECT FURTHER to the followmng conditions newly imposed by the Administrator of the Province of the Cape of Good Hone in terms of Ordinance Number 33 of 1934 when approving the establishment of Plumstead Township Extension Number 1 created in Deed of Transfer Number T35396/1980 reading as follows. (a) The owner of this erf shall be obliged, without compensation, to receive such material or permit such excavation on the erf, as may be required to allow use of the full width of the street and provide a safe and proper slope to its bank ‘owing to difference between the levels of the street as finally constructed and the ert, unless he elects to build retaining walls to the satisfaction of and within ‘a period to be determined by the local authonity (b) Thus erf shall be used for only such purposes as are permitted by the Town Pianning Scheme of the local authonty and subject to the conditions and Festnctions stipulated by the scheme Dh Page 2014D. SUBJECT FURTHER to the following conditions newly imposed by and for the benefit of CERIGNOLA INVESTMENTS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED in favour of itself and its successors in tile to the remainder of the Township held by the said Deed of Transfer Number 12844 dated 15" May 1970, there being no obligation upon such company as township owner to compel compliance with such condition, nor any irabilty upon such ‘company in the event of any contravention by the owner of any ert (a) {b) () No asbestos sheet roofs, no pitched iron or aluminum roofs shall be permitted on any structure anywhere on the Erf Flat or lean to sheet iron or aluminum roofs shall be permitted only when s0 concealed by parapet walls of a design in keeping with the design of the design of the house, that the roofing matenel 1s not visible from any pom at ground level outside the erf (u)) Any section of the Erf which may be deemed to be a yard shall be enclosed so that the same shall not be visible from ground level at any point outside the ert (u) No concrete panel walls shall be permitted (v) No fences or walls other than while painted tmber fences, or face bnck or plastered masonry walls shall be permitted, and all wire fences must be green plastic coated mesh fencing Page 9 of 4. 787 WHEREFORE the Appearer, renouncing all the nght and title the sard 4. PAULUS FRANCISCUS XAVERIUS SANDERS, Married as aforesaid 2. SONJA SANDERS, Married as aforesaid heretofore had to the premises, did, m consequence also acknowledge them to be entirely dispossessed of, and diseniitled to, the same, and that, by virtue of these presents, the said 4. LEANNE CINDY PARASRAM, Married as aforesaid 2 YOLIN GOVENDER, Married as aforesaid their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, now 1s and henceforth shall be entitled thereto, conformably to local customs, the State, however, reserving its nights, and finally acknowledging that the purchase pnce is the amount of R 3850 000.00 (Three Million Eight Hundred And Fifty Thousand Rand), IN WITNESS WHEREOF |, the sard Registrar, together with the appearer, have subscnbed to these presents, and have caused the seal of office to be affixed thereto THUS SIGNED, EXECUTED AND SEALED at the Office of the Registrar of Deeds at Cape ‘Town on 30 JAN 20% In my pre Registrar of Deeds ay Page 4of4ANNEXURE G 758 List of relevant parties Applicant M Luttig Info@minetialutig@amail.com Objector ML Wellard (Erf 73871) rk. wellard@dimensiondata.cor MPT Report Template ~ 8 June 2017 Poge 9 of?