Plans that block sea views approved in error
OOPS! We messed up. This is the official word from an eThekwini municipality official who has conceded that plans for a penthouse extension in a front-row apartment block in uMhlanga in KwaZuluNatal should never have been approved.
But, he says, the city can do nothing about it and only a judge can set aside the decision.
Regional co-ordinator of landuse management Marius Taljaard this week filed an affidavit in an urgent application brought by the body corporate of 160 Lagoon Drive, which seeks to stop the building work at an apartment in the neighbouring Casa Blanca, which is owned by a trust controlled by wealthy Joburg businessman Larry Nestadt.
The matter was set down for argument yesterday but was adjourned, and will be allocated to a judge soon.
While Nestadt argues that he has all the necessary approvals for his sea-view extension and he has already spent R2.5 million on the renovation project, the neighbours say he should have applied for spe- cial consent to relax the side space.
They say this would have given them an opportunity to object to his plans because their sea views would be obstructed, and the new covered veranda and open terrace would be so close to some of their balconies “that an intruder could hop from one to the other”. Nestadt has denied this.
Members of the body corporate of 160 Lagoon Drive also alleged they had attended meetings with Taljaard, who had advised them that the council’s permission was granted in error. Now Taljaard, in his affidavit filed on the eve of the intended hearing, has conceded this.
He said the side-space requirements were relaxed in 1996, but that relaxation related to the building plans under consideration at the time and not to any subsequent plan which involved “a major structural deviation”.
He said Nestadt’s plans, submitted in March last year, proposed additions and alterations which, in his view, did entail major deviations.
Because of this, he should have applied for special consent to relax the side space from a minimum of 4.5m to 2m.
Taljaard said while the official who handled the plan application had made a mistake, “all property owners and developers and their agents are required to familiarise themselves with the laws relating to developments to ensure compliance”.
“The trust should have properly determined the need for special consent and made application before lodging the plans for approval.
“The approval notice that accompanies the plans records that the owner is not relieved of the responsibility of ensuring the building is erected in accordance with the applicable laws.”
Taljaard said he had told the body corporate that the plan could be revoked only by court action. He said the municipality did not wish to “enter the fray” and would abide by the court’s decision.