Ratepayers’ associations up in arms over city’s ‘unfair’ planning proposal

THE CITY of Cape Town is considering a change to the approvals process of developments that could result in losses to the value of existing homes, says Lew Geffen, chairman of Lew Geffen Sotheby’s International Realty.

“People invest in property with the expectation of a return on investment. If these new zoning laws are passed, we could see a negative effect on property values, especially along the coast,” says Geffen.

“In simple terms, the city’s proposed amendments mean it’ll be extremely difficult for ratepayers to object to developments that could cause environmental damage, be an eyesore or directly affect the value of their properties. It also opens the door to collusion and corruption, notwithstanding that it is discounting residents’ opinion completely.”

The city has been quoted as saying the proposed changes to the system of delegated authority are to “maximise administrative and organisational efficiency”.

Currently sub- councils, which are directly accountable to residents, deal with these issues, but the council intends to take that authority away from them and centralise it within the city.

Zoning departures can be given for numerous reasons. These include changing a house from residential to business use (for example, a hairdressing salon, a motorcycle workshop or a craft centre), p e r mitt i ng c o ns t r uc t i o n beyond the predetermined building parameters of the erf, and building beyond a height restriction.

Geffen says a straightforward example would be a seaside suburb that has a building height restriction of two storeys.

“If you carefully chose a property that topographically means you’d never lose the sea view under the current zoning restrictions, then someone gets permission to build a fourstorey monolith in front of you because they have a zoning departure that’s out of step with the rest of the suburb, you’d have very little say.”

Geffen says as it stands, the city’s proposed amendments would be grossly unfair to the thousands of homeowners who owned properties that complied with zoning restrictions.

“Features like sea views add value to a home; if a new development obscures those views, the property will be devalued, meaning that buying along the coast could become a gamble.”

Using an example of a house with a sea view in suburbs such as Camps Bay or Clifton, says Brendan Miller, chief executive of Lew Geffen Sotheby’s International Realty Atlantic seaboard, you’d have as much as 50 percent of the value of your house wiped out when the first brick of the four- storey development was laid.

“Much of the value of any property with a sea view is, quite frankly, the view. Build something four floors high in front of it that entirely blocks the view, and the value of that property will plummet.”

The proposed amendments are to the systems of delegation for economic, environment and s patial planning matters, which has ratepayers’ groups across Cape Town up in arms.

There is also a social media campaign to put pressure on the council to withdraw the proposed amendment and an online petition already signed by hundreds of ratepayers.

Among the ratepayer organisations objecting to the city’s proposal are the Green Point Ratepayers and Residents Association; the Lotus River, Ottery, Grassy Park Ratepayers Association ( Logra); the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance; and the Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association.

The Camps Bay associat i o n ’ s c h a i r ma n , C h r i s Willemse, said: “The mayor is quietly attempting to push this amendment through a full sitting of council scheduled for August, while the DA caucus has effectively gagged dissenting councillors. All attempts by civic or ratepayer groups to properly consult the DA in this matter have been met with a stony silence.”

Logra executive member Natalie McAskill wrote to mayor Patricia de Lille: “We fear concentrating such enormous power in the hands of an individual can have disastrous consequences.”

Weekend Argus invited the City of Cape Town to comment, but no reply had been received by the time of going to print.