MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL - City of Cape Town

MPT Report – ERF 24716 CAPE TOWN 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


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.


setback 0m in lieu of 3m from the northern common

boundary.


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


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


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


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


Figure 2: Zoning Map

Figure 3: Aerial view of property and surrounding properties

Subject Property

Subject Property

611


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


Figure 4: Aerial view of property

Location of common boundaries setback

permanent departures triggered

613


Figure 5: Site plan (Annexure C)

Location of common

boundary setback

departures

614


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


northern common boundary.


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

ANNEXURE B:

Locality plan / Public participation map

622

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

ANNEXURE C:

Site development plan

624

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 : [email protected]

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 : [email protected] CELL: 0835710624 E.MAIL : [email protected]

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 : [email protected]

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 : [email protected] CELL: 0835710624 E.MAIL : [email protected]

626

ANNEXURE D:

Applicant’s motivation

627

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

ANNEXURE E:

Objections/comments/support/

withdrawal received

630

District Manager Development Management City of Cape Town Saturday, August 28, 2021, [email protected]

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 [email protected]

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

[email protected]

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

ANNEXURE F:

Applicant’s response to objections

633

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

MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL - City of Cape Town

Documents

Transcript of MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL - City of Cape Town