Post on 08-May-2023
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 1 of 16
REPORT TO: MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL
ITEM NO MPTNW150322
WARD 56: APPLICATION FOR DEPARTURES IN TERMS OF THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BY-
LAW 2015: ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN, 18 HURRICANE STREET, WINDERMERE
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Case ID 70546126
Author Alanza Wildskit
Case Officer phone number 021 400 6900
District Table Bay
Ward 56
Ward Councillor Helen Jacobs
Report date January 2022
Acceptance date 29/04/2021
Applicable legislation Post-2019 MPBL amendment
606
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 2 of 16
2. BACKGROUND FACTS
The proposed development includes a new residential dwelling unit and outbuilding
(storeroom, domestic staff quarters and games room).
1 objection is received from the KENFAC Residents and Ratepayers Association.
3. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S MOTIVATION
3.1. The applicant’s motivation (see annexure D) may be summarised as follows:
The proposal will have a positive socio-economic impact and the value will
increase.
The proposal does not compromise the environment.
It is believed that the proposed change is compatible with the surrounding area.
The proposal is not located in an area of historical significance and will not result in
any negative impact on any heritage resources.
The proposal will not disrupt the traffic flow and parking facilities. Therefore, it will not
have a negative traffic impact.
The surrounding neighbours has no objection to the proposal and has given verbal
consent.
Property description Erf 24716, Cape Town
Property address 18 Hurricane Street, Windermere
Application components /
description
For the proposed new residential dwelling and
outbuilding. The following applications are required:
Permanent departures:
Item 22(d) - To permit the new outbuilding to be
setback 0m in lieu of 3m from the southern common
boundary.
Item 22(d) - To permit the new outbuilding to be
setback 0m in lieu of 3m from the northern common
boundary.
Item 22(d) - To permit the new outbuilding to be
setback 0m in lieu of 3m from the eastern common
boundary.
Item 22(c) - To permit the proposed dwelling unit to
be 5.1m above the existing ground level in lieu of 4m,
to be sited 1.5m from the southern common
boundary.
Site extent 503m2
Current zoning Single Residential 1 (SR1)
Current land use Vacant
Overlay zone applicable None
PHRA or SAHRA heritage None
Public participation
outcome summary
Notice to Ward Councillor, Ratepayer’s Association
and to affected surrounding neighbours.
1 objection received.
Recommended decision
Approval Refusal Approval in part &
Refusal in part
607
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 3 of 16
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The objections, applicant’s response and departments’ response on these are
summarised below.
Applicable Dates / Comments
Ad
ve
rtis
ing
Notice in the media (s81)
Notice to a person (s82) 16/07/2021
Notice to Community organisation (s83) 16/07/2021
Notice to Ward Councillor (s83) 16/07/2021
Notice of no objection (s84)
Notice to Provincial Government (s86)
Notice to an Organ of State (s87)
Public meeting
On-site display
Ou
tco
me
Objections 1 objection received
Objection petition
Support / No objection
Comments
Ward Councillor response None
4.1. Objections / comments received (see annexures E) and applicant’s responses
(annexure F) are summarised as follows:
608
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 4 of 16
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS, APPLICANT’S RESPONSE AND CITY RESPONSE
No. Objection Applicant’s response LUM response
1 KENFAC Residents and Ratepayers Association
Kensington has a fast growing population, however the
infrastructural development does not keep up with this population
increase.
The Association has noted the increase of development in the area
requiring departures from regulated building policies.
The fear of adhoc densification with no consultation with ratepayers
and residents to address these issues in the area has not been
discussed.
The future of the area cannot be determined by wilful relaxation of
building regulations.
The Association will oppose any densification taking place in the
context of inadequate infrastructure and amenities.
This application was discussed at a special executive committee
meeting and concerns were raised to not support the application.
A suggestion is made that suspension be placed on all departure
applications in Kensington and the Factreton community.
The deviation of the regulations will result in a community that will
look no different than an over congested informal settlement with
associated risks.
The City fails to uphold the responsibly with respect to building
regulations on behalf of the ratepayers.
Building regulations are there to ensure development uphold the
standards, safety, aesthetics of the area and protect the property
values in the area.
The proposal has been submitted on the grounds of what is
permitted and to not overpopulate the property.
The application was advertised to the affected neighbours
and no objections were received.
The proposal will not increase and put more pressure on the
existing infrastructure.
The proposal is to accommodate the owners family and not
for rental purposes.
No supporting evidence was submitted to substantiate
the claim that the departures/densification is
inappropriate in the area. The scale of the proposed building is not out of context
with that permitted in the area as the proposal remains
for residential use. The proposal is considered to be
contextually appropriate.
It is not believed that a small-scale development such as
a new dwelling and outbuilding will create a strain or put
any pressure on the existing infrastructure.
The impact of the proposal are assessed below in
paragraph 6.2.5.
609
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 5 of 16
Figure 1: Location of notices served.
5. BACKGROUND TO PROPOSAL
Description of the area / surrounding land uses
5.1. The property (503m²) is located in a well-established residential area in Windermere.
The immediate surrounding properties comprise of a mix of styles and housing types.
5.2. Devils Peak, Lions Head and Table Mountain are on the south-western side of the
property.
610
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 6 of 16
Figure 2: Zoning Map
Figure 3: Aerial view of property and surrounding properties
Subject Property
Subject Property
611
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 7 of 16
Property description
5.3. The subject property has no structures on site and is currently vacant.
5.4. The site is located along Hurricane Street and vehicle access can also be obtained
from this road.
Zoning and existing rights
5.5. The property is zoned Single Residential 1 (SR1) which allows for primarily dwelling
houses. Given the property’s size (503m²) it has the development rules as indicated in
Table 1 below.
5.6. The surrounding area is largely SR1 zoned with dwelling houses and thus has the same
zoning development rights as the subject property.
Table 1 – SR1 development parameters
Proposed development
5.7. It is proposed to develop the property with a new residential dwelling and outbuilding
(see figures 4 – 5). Summary of proposal:
1. Main dwelling:
Proposed lounge, tv room, kitchen and scullery in the front of the dwelling.
Proposed 4 bedrooms, 2 en-suite, a bathroom and laundry room at the back
of the main dwelling.
2. Outbuilding:
Proposed domestic staff quarters.
Proposed storeroom.
Proposed entertainment area (games room)
The site plan is attached as Annexure C.
612
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 8 of 16
Figure 4: Aerial view of property
Location of common boundaries setback
permanent departures triggered
613
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 9 of 16
Figure 5: Site plan (Annexure C)
Location of common
boundary setback
departures
614
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 10 of 16
6. PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT
Criteria for deciding application
6.1. Consideration of criteria in terms of Section 99(1):
6.1.1. Compliance with the requirements of the MPBL
- All the required applications have been made.
- The application complies with the basic requirements of the MPBL.
- All the processes and procedures have been correctly undertaken.
- The public participation was correctly undertaken.
- No admin penalty application is required.
6.1.2. Compliance or consistence with the MSDF and District Plan:
The proposal is consistent with the Cape Town Municipal Spatial Development
Framework as the property is located within the Urban Inner Core and
earmarked for Urban Development. The application facilitates contextually
appropriate densification.
6.1.3. Consideration in terms of Section 99(3) of the desirability of the following criteria:
The proposal is considered to be desirable. The proposal will create the
opportunity for intensification and densification. The proposal is compliant with
City policies. No adverse traffic impact is envisaged and there is no impact on
heritage or the biophysical environment. The desirability is further evaluated
below.
6.1.4. Would approval of the application have the effect of granting the property the
development rules of the next subzone within a zone?
No.
I am satisfied that the decision making criteria in Section 99(1) have been complied
with.
6.2. CONSIDERATION OF CRITERIA IN TERMS OF SECTION 99(2)
6.2.1. Any applicable spatial development framework
The proposal is consistent with the Table Bay District Plan as the property is
earmarked for urban development. The application facilitates contextually
appropriate densification.
a. Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework (2018)
The property is located within an existing urban footprint within the Urban
Inner Core of the Spatial Transformation Areas of 2018. The application
facilitates contextually appropriate densification at a point of high
accessibility, exposure, convenience and urban opportunity.
The proposal promotes land use intensification. It supports this Spatial
Transformation Area by intensifying in an area of service capacity. The
increased density creates a more compact city, which ensures a more
efficient city form and use of resources.
615
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 11 of 16
b. Table Bay District Plan, 2012 (TBDP)
The property is located within Sub-district 4 of the 2012 Table Bay District Plan
(TBDP) and falls within the Greater Eastern sub-area of the TBDP. The proposal
is consistent with the spatial development objective in the TBDP, that is to
ensure appropriate built form and land use to achieve a quality
environment.
Figure 6: Position of Windermere (TBDP)
6.2.2. Relevant criteria contemplated in the DMS
The application is compliant with the principles and intent of the DMS.
The property is zoned Single Residential 1 (SR1) and the following development
rules apply:
The development rules in terms of the DMS permit a maximum floor factor of 1,0
(503m²), maximum height of 10,0m to top of roof and 8,0m to wall-plate, street
boundary building line of 3,5m and common boundary building lines of 0,0 m
for the first 12m.
The proposal is for the new residential dwelling and outbuilding; the proposal is
in keeping with the residential nature as envisaged in the DMS. The proposal
trigger departures from the common boundary building lines and height within
the 3m common boundary line.
6.2.3. Applicable policy or strategy approved by the City to guide decision making
c. Economic Growth Strategy, 2013 (EGS)
The proposal is consistent with the Economic Growth Strategy as it ensures
that growth is environmentally sustainable in the long term by densifying
within an urban area and will create temporary employment opportunity
during the construction of the proposal.
Windermere
616
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 12 of 16
d. Social Development Strategy, 2013 (SDS)
The SDS encourages social development and the overall improvement and
enhancement in the quality of life of all people. The proposed application
supports the promotion of safe households and sustainable communities by
providing for residential densification in closer proximity to
business/commercial hubs, which in turn promotes and fosters social
integration.
e. Cape Town Densification Policy (2012)
The promotion of higher levels of densification is encouraged particularly at
specific spatial locations and which have good public transport accessibility.
To the extent that the proposal relates to a new residential dwelling and
outbuilding, it aligns with the objectives of the policy insofar as it ensures
optimal and efficient use of infrastructure, services, facilities and land.
f. Transit Oriented Development (TOD): Strategic Framework, 2016
TOD intends to improve public transport affordability and arrest sprawl. It is
built on the principles of affordability, accessibility, efficiency, intensification
and densification. The proposal aligns with TOD as the development reflects
densification of land use within the City footprint and in particular, an area
that is identified for this sort of development.
6.2.4. Consideration in terms of Section 99(3) of the extent of desirability of the
following criteria:
a. socio - economic impact
The proposal will have a positive economic and social impact by improving
the subject property close to amenities and facilities. The proposal will also
create employment opportunities during the construction stage of the
development. The site is currently vacant and the new residential dwelling
will add more value to the property and surrounding properties.
b. compatibility with surrounding uses
The intended use of the property is residential and is compatible with the
surrounding uses which contain residential dwellings. Furthermore, the
proposal is believed to sufficiently integrate into the existing built form and
architectural appearance of the area.
The proposed departures will create a built form, which is not out of context
given the scale thereof. The surrounding area and neighbor at the rear of
the subject property has buildings that are setback 0m from their common
boundaries.
When considered in the context of the development as a whole, and in
relation to the impact on residents and the surrounding community, the
departures are not considered to have a materially negative impact on the
surrounding properties, given the nature and extent of the departures
proposed.
c. impact on the external engineering services
No negative impact on external engineering is anticipated as a result of the
departure application.
d. impact on safety, health and wellbeing of the surrounding community
Densification (including small-scale) is viewed as a positive contribution to
urban place-making and improves the safety of urban environments.
617
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 13 of 16
e. impact on heritage
The property is not located in any heritage area and the site has no
environmental or heritage status.
f. impact on the biophysical environment
There is no negative impact on the biophysical environment as the property
is located within an urban area.
g. traffic impacts, parking, access and other transport related considerations
Due to the nature of the proposals it will have no negative impact from a
traffic flow, parking or access perspectives.
No significant traffic is envisaged as a result of the proposal. 2 parking bays
are provided which complies with the minimum requirement in terms of the
parking provision.
h. conditions that can mitigate an adverse impact of the proposed land use
No conditions are being proposed.
6.2.5. impact on existing rights (other than the right to be protected against trade
competition)
a) Common boundary setbacks and height departures
The proposed additions is setback 0m in lieu of 3m from the southern,
eastern and northern common boundary. The deviation of 3m
respectively is considered moderate. No windows are proposed along
all the boundaries and this will have no adverse visual or privacy
impacts.
The abutting neighbour on the eastern side has an existing structure that
is located 0m along this shared boundary, with no space separating the
buildings on this side. It is considered to have limited impact on the
neighbour.
The proposed increase in height along the 3m common boundary line
of 5.1m in lieu of 4m is considered to have limited impact. The deviation
of 1.1m respectively considered minor and within a very limited building
area. The proposed height is not uncommon for the area and is seen
acceptable and appropriate in the area. It is not considered to be out
of character with the built form of the area.
b) Built form and character of the area
As previously discussed in the report the surrounding uses in the area are
predominately single residential dwelling units. The proposal is
considered compatible with the built form and character of the existing
area.
The scale of the building is not out of context with that permitted in the
area. The primary land use rights will be maintained for residential
purposes and the built form and design conforms to the surrounding
building context.
c) Infrastructure capacity
It is not considered that the proposal will negatively impact the
engineering/infrastructure services as the usage of the property remains
residential.
618
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 14 of 16
d) Existing rights
The objections raised by the KFRRA do not directly address the merits of
the proposals but are, instead, general statements regarding
development trends in the area. For the reasons expressed above, the
proposal is considered to be appropriate in terms of scale, appearance
and design and will have no adverse impact on existing rights.
Approval of this application will not compromise the ability of any
property owner to develop his/her property in accordance with the DMS
or any other planning related regulations.
6.2.6. Other considerations prescribed in relevant national or provincial legislation.
[Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA), 2013 and Land
Use Planning Act (LUPA), 2014]
To the extent that the nature and scale of the proposal is minor it may
promote the development principles of SPLUMA and LUPA in so far as:
The proposal is spatially sustainable as it add residential opportunities on
a small footprint. This reduces the pressure to develop in urban
peripheries.
The proposal promotes efficiency in that it encourages a more intensive
use of the site, which discourages a sprawling urban form.
A denser use of the site also promotes the principle of resilience to the
extent that increased access to mobility and social services
opportunities makes access to economic opportunities easier.
I am satisfied that the considerations in Section 99(3) have been assessed and that the
proposed land use is desirable.
7. REASONS FOR DECISION
7.1. Reasons for the recommended decision for approval relating to the application for the
Permanent Departures in terms of the Development Management Scheme may be
summarized as follows:
7.1.1. The proposal complies with Sections 99(1) and 99(3) of the MPBL as elaborated
on in section 5 of this report;
7.1.2. The proposal is consistent with City policies and Strategies;
7.1.3. The proposal will not negatively impact on the rights of the surrounding owners;
7.1.4. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses as the additions are
of an appropriate scale and form;
7.1.5. The proposal will not negatively impact existing infrastructure.
8. RECOMMENDATION
In view of the above, it is recommended that:
8.1. The application for permanent departures, in respect of Erf 24716, Cape Town Bay be
approved in terms of section 98(b) of the City of Cape Town Municipal Planning By-
Law, 2015, subject to conditions contained in Annexure A attached.
619
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 15 of 16
ANNEXURES
Annexure A Application details and approval conditions to be imposed
Annexure B Locality plan / Public participation map
Annexure C Site development plan
Annexure D Applicant’s motivation
Annexure E Objections/comments/support/withdrawel received
Annexure F Applicant’s response to objections
________________________________ _______________________________________
Section Head PP. District Manager
Name: Gregory September Name: Marx Mupariwa
Tel no: 021 400 6447 Tel no: 021 400 6443
Date: 10 February 2022 Date: 15 February 2022
SACPLAN NO.: A 2445/2016 SACPLAN NO.: A 1123/1999
620
MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN Page 16 of 16
ANNEXURE A In this annexure:
“City” means the City of Cape Town
“The owner” means the registered owner of the property
“The property” means ERF 24716, CAPE TOWN, 18 HURRICANE STREET WINDERMERE
“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
“Dir: DM” means Director: Development Management or his/her delegatee.
CASE ID: 70546126
1. APPLICATIONS GRANTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 98 (b) OF THE BY-LAW
1.1 PERMANENT DEPARTURES:
1.1.1 Item 22(d): To permit the new outbuilding to be setback 0m in lieu of 3m from the
southern common boundary.
1.1.2 Item 22(d): To permit the new outbuilding to be setback 0m in lieu of 3m from the
northern common boundary.
1.1.3 Item 22(d): To permit the new outbuilding to be setback 0m in lieu of 3m from the
eastern common boundary.
1.1.4 Item 22(c): To permit the proposed dwelling unit to be 5.1m above the existing ground
level in lieu of 4m, to be sited 1.5m from the southern common boundary.
621
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENTLOCALITY MAP ANNEXURE :
24716
WINDERMERECAPE TOWN
Subcouncil 1556
TABLE BAYOverview
Notices Served
Petition Signatory
SupportReceived
ObjectionsReceived
Tuesday, 29 June 2021
1:600Generated by:
Sub Council:
District:
Allotment:
Ward:
Suburb:
Erf:
File Reference:
Date:
623
GULLEY
main bedroom 1
tv. room
bedroom 3
kitchen
lounge
bedroom 4.
bathrm
main bedroom 2
wd1
wd
13
GULLEY GULLEY
GULLEY
GULLEY
BE LESS THAN 400mm.
entertainment areastoreroom maidsroom
laundry
scullery
SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL:
ALL DIMENSIONS , LEVELS AND OTHER DETAILS TO
BE CHECKED BY THE BUILDER BEFORE COMMENCE-
MENT OF WORK.
ANY DISCREPANCIES TO BE REPORTED TO THE
DESIGNER.
FIGURED DIMENSIONS MUST BE USED IN PREFERENCE
TO SCALING THE DRAWING.
NO PART OF ANY BUILDING WORK TO PROJECT
BEYOND THE BOUNDARY LINE.
EXCAVATIONS MUST BE TAKEN DOWN TO PROVIDE
A SOLID AND UNIFORM FOUNADTION TO ALL FOOTINGS
ALL FOUNDATION TRENCHES TO BE INSPECTED
BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PRIOR TO CASTING
OF CONCRETE.
ROOF COVERING:
17,5 DEGREE PITCH ROOFRENOWN CEMENT TILES ON 38 X 38 BATTENS @ 320 C/CSON SABS APPROVED SISALATION 405 LAPPED MIN.150mm AT JOINTS ON ROOF TRUSSES @ 750 c/cs. MIN WITHAPPROVED NAILING PLATES, ERECTED AND BRACED INACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS135mm ISOTHERM INSULATION INTO ROOF SPACE ABOVENEW CEILING.TIED DOWN TO WALLPLATES WITH 1,2mm x 30mm GALVANISED STEEL STRAPS INSERTED 600mm DEEP.RAFTERS TIED DOWN TO WALLS WITH 1,2 mm X 30mm GALVANISED STEEL STRAPS EMBEDDED 300mm INTO WALL.
FASCIABOARDS : 75 x 230mmBARGE BOARD : 75 X 230mm 100mm DIAMETER GUTTERING80mm DIAMETER DOWNPIPESRAINWATER CHANNELS : 250 X100 PRECAST CONCRETE.
CEILINGS:
6,4 mm SKIMMED GYPSUM RHINOBOARD ON 38 X38 mm BRANDERING TO BE SECURELY SPIKED TO THE SUPPORTING TIMBERS WITH 75 mm WIRE NAILS AT 450 c/cs.
GLAZING:THICKNESS OF GLAZING PANES TO WINDOWS AND DOORSTO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SANS 10400.IF GLAZING IS NOT SAFETY GLAZED ITS NOT BE INSTALLEDLESS THAN 500mm FROM F.F.L .GLAZING THICKNESS TO BE 6.38mm AND SAFETY GLASS.SHOWER CUBICLES TO BE SAFETY GLAZED 10400-N4.4
PLUMBING:THE INTERNAL DIAMETER OF SOIL PIPES NOT TO BE LESSTHAN 100mm & MIN. R- VALUE OF 1.0.THE INTERNAL DIAMETER OF ANY WASTE PIPE SHALL NOT
A MINIMUM OF 40mm DIAMETER TRAP WITH A MINIMUM WATER SEAL DEPTH OF 75mm SHALL BE FITTED TO ALL
ALL FIXTURES TO BE SABS APPROVED.SANITARY FIXTURES.
SKETCH PLAN
PROJECT TITLE:
PROPOSED NEW DWELLING
ON ERF: 24716
NO. HURRICANE STREETFACTRETON
FOR: HOUSE . LEE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER:
ABUBAKR SALAAM
PR.ARCH. DESIGNER- D1383
NO. 24 LOUBSER CRESCENTKENSINGTON
CELL: 0835710624 E.MAIL : abubakrsalaam@yahoo.com
DRAWN BY: A.SALAAM
SCALE: 1:100 DATE: MARCH 2021
DRAWING NO. 25-03-2021 SL - SHEET SIZE : A1
SIGN:
HURRICANE STREET
T.NORTH
3.64
02.
000
3.50
0
3.450 4.830 1.200 1.200 6.600230 230230 909090
23
02
30
23
02
30
23
02
30
23
09
0
5.00
03.
250
3.50
03.
000
2.15
0
16.3
50
2.560
stoep
4.800 2.800 4.800
230230
9090
5.1505.150 1.1001.100230
CARPARK CARPARK
1.750230 230230230
A
A
B
B
12m (0,0m bldg.line)
9 084
wc
DRAINAGE SECTION
shower
hb.
916
9443
7045579296
gulley
wc
hb. shower
COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
1: 6012700
33,0 - 12 = 21,00 m
re.210000
lateral building lines.
not exceeding 60% of 3m
NEW DWELLING = 206 sqm.
SITE AREA = 503 sqm.
PERCENTAGE COVER = 55 %
11,00 / 62, 44 x 100 = 17,6 %TOTAL COVERAGE = 278 sqm.
20,44 m
LINEAR CALCULATIONS
9550INVERT LVL.
DISTANCEDEPTH
FALL
4506400
1: 60
MH/RE. NOCOVER LVL.
new re110000 10000
8800
10000 re.3 mh4
6.00 + 5.00 = 11.00 m
33,0 - 12 = 21,00 m
12
m (
0,0
m b
uild
ing
lin
e)
12
m (
0,0
m b
uild
ing
lin
e)
18,240 bdy27
,420
bd
y
wd 2 wd 3 wd 4
wd
5
wd
6w
d 7
wd 8wd 9wd10wd11
wd
12
wd
14
wd 1 wd 2 wd 3 wd 4 wd 5 wd 6
new manhole 7
re.1
re.2
re.3
re.4
re.5
re.6
FENESTRATION CALCULATIONS
WD 1 to 4 = 1,3 x 1,3 x 4 = 6,76 sqm
WD 5 and 14 = 1,5 x1,1 x 2 = 3,30 sqm
WD 6 and 13 = 0,7 x0,5 x 2 = 0,7 sqm
WD 7 and 12 = 1,35 x 1,2 x 2 = 3,24 sqm
WD 8 and 11 = 1,50 x 1,50 x 2 = 4,50 sqm
WD 9 and 10 = 0,7 x 0,6 x 2 = 0,84 sqmWD 9 and 10 = 0,7 x 0,6 x 2 = 0,84 sqm
TOTAL GLAZED AREA = 19,34 sqm.
19,34 / 188 x 100 = 10, 28 %
FLOOR AREA ( main dwelling)= 188 sqm.
FLOOR AREA ( out building) = 62 sqm.
WD 1,5 and 6 = 1,2 x 1,2 x 3 = 4,32 sqm.
WD 2 = 1,8 x 1,3 = 2,34 sqm.
18,240 bdy
WD 3 and 4 = 0,7 x 0,5 x 2 = 0,7 sqm.
TOTAL GLAZED AREA = 7,36 sqm.
7,36 / 62 x100 = 11,8 %
01
XA 10400 COMPLIANT
XA 10400 COMPLIANT
3.96
0
13.320
PLAN AND SITEPLAN ON ERF: 24716 (1:100)
ERF 22664
ERF 24717
ERF 24721
NEW OUTBUILDING = 72 sqm.
GAMESROOMSTAFF QUARTERS
GARAGE FACADE ONLY
3.50m street building line
5 x 2.50 m5 x 2.50 m
14 sqm.24 sqm. 32 sqm
ba
thrm
w.c
1.500
3.000
2.500
3m c
om
mo
n bu
ildin
g li
ne
3m common building line
3m c
om
mo
n bu
ildin
g li
ne
CELL: 0835710624 E.MAIL : abubakrsalaam@yahoo.com CELL: 0835710624 E.MAIL : abubakrsalaam@yahoo.com
625
f.f.lg.l.
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
egl.
f.f.le.g.l.
PROJECT TITLE:
PROPOSED NEW DWELLING
ON ERF: 24716
NO. HURRICANE STREETFACTRETON
FOR: HOUSE . LEE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER:
ABUBAKR SALAAM
PR.ARCH. DESIGNER- D1383
NO. 24 LOUBSER CRESCENTKENSINGTON
CELL: 0835710624 E.MAIL : abubakrsalaam@yahoo.com
DRAWN BY: A.SALAAM
SCALE: 1:100 DATE: MARCH 2021
DRAWING NO. 25-03-2021 SL - SHEET SIZE : A1
SIGN:
SECTION A - A
SECTION B - B
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
f.f.le.g.l.
EAST ELEVATION
WITH SANS 10254.
FACTURER'S SPECIFICATION.
ALL PIPING TO BE INSULATED
AND PRESSURE RELIEF PIPING
ACCORDANCE WITH MANU-
10252-1.
CYLINDERS TO BE INSULATED WITH
SYSTEM
WITHIN 1m OF THE CONNECTION TO
THE HEATING OR COOLING SYSTEMS
TO BE INSTALLED BY A SPECIALIST,
MINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
AND SANS 10106,BASED ON THE
INSULATION TO BE INSTALLED IN WITH AN R-VALUE =1. ALL
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANU-
IINCLUDING ALL FLOW AND RETURN
THE HEATING OR COOLING SYSTEM
THERMASTATIC MIXIING VALUE
PIPE WORK TO BE INSULATED WITH
SOLAR HWC TO BE FITTED WITH A
150 LITRE SOLAR WATER CYLINDERS
WITH THERMA-FLEX INSULATION HOT WATER PIPE TO BE INSULATED
AN INSULATION COVER WITH AN
WITHIN 1m OF THE CONNECTION.TO
THE SOLAR HEATING SYSTEM
THE INSTALLATION SHALL COMPLY
SHALL COMPLY WITH SANS1307
PROVISIONS OF SANS 6211-1 AND
THERMAL PERFORMANCE DETER-
SANS 6211-2.
PIPES,COLD WATER SUPPLY PIPING
R-VALUE= 2 AND ALL EXTERNAL
ALL PIPES TO COMPLY WITH SANS
SOLAR WATER HEATING
R-VALUE =1 AND ALL INTERNAL UV SOLAR LAGGING WITH AN
FACTURER'S SPECIFICATION.
kitchenscullery
700X230 fnds. 700X230 fnds. 700X230 fnds.
maidsroom
700X230 fnds. 700X230 fnds. PITCHED ROOF INSULATION
ACCORDANCE WITH SANS 10177-5.
CEMENT TILES, WILL HAVE A TOTAL R-VALUE OF 3,7mK/W.
R- VALUE OF 0,40 IN UPWARD DIRECTION.
WITH DIRECTION OF HEAT FLOW UPWARDS.
THICKNESS OF 140mm (BLANKET INSULATION)
NON COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL WHEN TESTED,IN
FLEXIBLE POLYESTER BLANKET TO BE USED WITH
HORIZONTAL CEILINGS -METAL SHEET WITH TOTAL
ROOF AIR-SPACE -0,15 /UPWARDS.PLASTERBOARD GYPSUM -0,06.
2.50
0
2.80
0
2.50
0
02
f.f.l
side boundary
side boundaryside boundary
f.f.le.g.l.
rear boundary
17,5 DEGREE PITCH ROOFRENOWN CEMENT TILES ON 38 X 38 BATTENS @ 320 C/CSON SABS APPROVED SISALATION 405 LAPPED MIN.
rear boundary
f.f.lg.l.
f.f.lg.l.
4- DEGREE SLOPELONGSPAN IBR- SHEETING TO 75 X50 PURLINSAT 900 C/C, ON 152 X 50 RAFTERS AT 900C/C, TIED
DOWN WITH 30X 1,3 mm HOOP IRON STRAPSEMBEDDED 600 mm DEEP INTO BRWK.
GRADE V4 TIMBER TO BE USED.
3.0
00
3.0
00
5.1
00
5.1
00
3.000
3.53
0
egl.f.f.l
1.500
5.1
00
CELL: 0835710624 E.MAIL : abubakrsalaam@yahoo.com CELL: 0835710624 E.MAIL : abubakrsalaam@yahoo.com
626
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ZONING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF CAPE TOWN
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN JUNE 2021
OWNER: S.LEE
APPLICATION : ERF.24716
HURRICANE STREET - FACTRETON
CURRENT ZONING : SINGLE RESIDENTIAL
SITE AREA : 503 SQUARE METERS
FLOOR FACTOR : 1
MAXIMUM FLOOR SPACE: N/A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE BASE LEVEL: 8m
STREET BUILDING LINE : 3,50 meters
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES (DWELLING) AND SURROUNDING AREA DOES
NOT HAVE FAUNA OR FLORA AND WILL NOT COMPROMISE THE PROPOSAL
AS ALL ERVEN IS FOR HABITABLE PURPOSES.
THE SURROUNDING NEIHBOURS HAS NO OBJECTION TO MY PROPOSAL AND
VERBAL CONSENT WERE GIVEN IN THIS REGARD.
THE NEW DWELLING WILL ALSO INCREASES THE OVERALL VALUATION OF
THE ENTIRE NEIGHBOURHOOD, AND HAVE A POSITIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC
IMPACT.
628
IMPACT ON TRAFFIC
THERE IS NO DISTURBANCE TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC OR PARKING
FACILITIES FOR THE NEW STRUCTURES.
ADDITIONAL DEPARTURE :
0,0m ilo 3.00m on NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES
0,0m ilo 3.00m ON EASTERN BOUNDARY.
IMPACT OR ANY IMPOSITIONS OF CONDITIONS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT
THE NEW DWELLING DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ITS
NORMAL DEVELOPMENT PERIMETERS AND IS MERELY FOR NORMAL
IMPROVEMENTS.
HERITAGE:
THIS SITE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN A HERITAGE WESTERN CAPE GRADED
AREA.
I THANK YOU
MS S. LEE. (OWNER)
629
District Manager Development Management City of Cape Town Saturday, August 28, 2021, comments_objections.tablebay@capetown.gov.za
Dear Sir/Madam
Proposed Application: Cape Town Municipal Planning BY LAW: Section 42(B) Permanent Departure: ERF 24716, Cape Town, 18 Hurricane Street Windermere. Application Number: 70546126
With respect to the subject matter, we take this opportunity to express comments and concerns raised by homeowners and residents. The Kensington Factreton (Windermere) area situated along the busy Voortrekker Rd corridor is an urban growth point and has much potential to develop into a community conducive for family living, learning, working, and socializing as per our vision.
Over the past few years, we have observed the steady increase in developments in our area requiring departures from regulated building policy and practice and fear that this is part of an ad-hoc densification of our area in the absence of any consultation with ratepayers, homeowners, and residents to address concerns and generate a collective vision for the area. We cannot allow the future of our area to be determined by the apparent willful relaxation, slackening and departures from building regulations on the part of the City of Cape Town, a trend that appears to only
monetising each available square metre in response to the growing demand for rentals. The above application was tabled and discussed in a recent special executive committee meeting and together with concerns raised by residents and homeowners alike the consensus taken is not to support the application for departures. A deviation from statutory
KENFAC Residents &
Ratepayers Association (KFRRA)
Chairperson: Leslie John Swartz
Vice Chairperson: Dawood Esack
Secretary: Fadia Gamieldien
Treasurer: Mariam Oliver
Contact details: 178 7th Avenue, Kensington, 7405
+27 83 566 3019kenfacratepayers@gmail.com
City of Cape Town Sub-council 15 registration ID 3194
Vision of the Association: To inform, encourage and activate the KENFAC residents/ratepayers to create a community conducive for family living, learning, working and socializing.
e change you want to see in the
178 7th Avenue, Kensington, 7405+27 83 566 3019
kenfacratepayers@gmail.com
registration ID 3194
631
building policy/regulation will ultimately see our community looking no different from over-congested informal settlements and the associated risks speaks for themselves. The fact is that the City of Cape Town has been neglectful in its responsibility to ensure that policies with respect to building regulations are upheld on behalf of ratepayers and homeowners. These regulations are purposeful in ensuring that all development upholds acceptable standards, safety included (necessary, indispensable, and obligatory fire-beaks etc etc) and conserve the aesthetic of the area as well as protecting the property values of neighbouring residents. In conclusion, we indicate that we are not in support and hereby reject the above-mentioned application for all permanent departures. Regards
Kenfac Residents and Ratepayers Association Chairperson
632
BUILDING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ZONING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF CAPE TOWN
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN SEPTEMBER 2021
OWNER: S.LEE
APPLICATION : ERF.24716
HURRICANE STREET- FACTRETON
CURRENT ZONING : SINGLE RESIDENTIAL
SITE AREA : 503 SQUARE METERS
THE PROPOSAL TO SUBMIT PLANS AND HAVE IT APPROVED VIA THE
MUNICIPALITY HAS BEEN DONE ON THE GROUNDS OF WHAT IS PERMITTED
AND NOT OVERPOPULATING MY PROPERTY.
THE NECESSARY ZONING REGULATIONS OF WHICH THE MUNICIPALITY
WAIVERED IN OUR FAVOUR WAS ADVERTISED AND NO SUCH OBJECTIONS
WAS RECEIVED FROM ANY OF THE AFFECTED NEIGHBOURS.
THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT IN ANY WAY PUT FUTHER PRESSURE ON THE
EXISTING INFRASTUCTURE AS IT IS FOR HABITTABLE USE.
THE PURPOSE FOR THE PROPOSAL IS TO ACCOMADATE MY FAMILY AND NOT
AS A WAY OF RENTAL.
I HOPE THIS WILL SUFFICE AS THE DEPARTURE APPLICATION HAS BEEN
DEALT WITH.
I THANK YOU .
MS S. LEE.( OWNER)
634