Questions linger over Bo-Kaap saga
MORE questions have been raised about the company that acquired the highly contested Lion Street development in Bo-Kaap from Blok Urban Living.
Yesterday the Western Cape High Court postponed Prime Point Properties’ application for an interdict, which had initially been sought by Blok.
Secretary of the Bo-Kaap Civic and Ratepayers Association Jacky Poking said: “The company (Prime Properties) with no prior civic or heritage experience, had also registered with the Western Cape Heritage Body as a heritage conservation body, which allows them to give comment on plans as they relate to heritage. The association will be asking Heritage Western Cape to investigate their qualification as a conservation body.”
Blok served the application earlier this month the first day of the holy month of Ramadaan and set the matter down for hearing yesterday. The application was also brought on the eve of Bo-Kaap’s victory after 19 sites were declared National Heritage Sites by the National Department of Arts and Culture.
It has also emerged that the chief executive of Blok Properties is also the chief executive of Prime Point Properties, according to a company search.
“We will further be asking the SA Revenue Service to investigate the sale of the property from Blok to Prime Point Properties,” Poking said.
Tim Dunn, a lawyer for the residents, said: “We have a case. We will be opposing the substitution of the new owner for the old owner because our argument is you can’t transfer the right of an interdict, given that it’s an interdict in relation to the company and its relation to the property.”
Court papers state that Blok entered into a written sales agreement with the new owners in June last year. The property was sold to them for R51 795 076.55. Blok developers had initially planned to develop a pilot inclusionary-housing project.
In November the Western Cape High Court granted the interdict to the developers, preventing the community from interfering with construction.
Blok said yesterday: “Blok filed a narrow interdict against specific respondents who have led some of the attacks and intimidation at its site in order to protect staff and contractors as well as prevent any person violently and unlawfully obstructing access to the property from doing so.”