Yesterday a resident of another suburb told me about the legal fight
brewing with a neighbour and city over a resident's house - the
structure was completed months ago - that departed from the building and
zoning regulations and approved plans and ignored neighbours'
objections, i.e., their refusal to approve a waiver.
But the city allowed building work to proceed and the structure to be completed. I've seen it. It's ostentatious and inappropriate for that stretch of "garden route".
The complainant tells me the city apparently fined the owner but claims there is now "nothing" they can do - they say they can't order the owner to demolish the illegal building work. The last point is nonsense because there is legal precedent that illegal structures can be demolished. (Incidentally, illegal structures in informal settlements are regularly demolished).
A friend refused to sign a waiver for a neighbour to build a granny flat abutting and overlooking his pool and yard. He received a "strange" call from a city planning official who "aggressively" demanded to know why. His letter of objection stated all that - impairment of view, light, privacy and property values - but he gave the reasons again. This did not satisfy the official who said the department had approved the rezoning application.
A few months later my friend received a call from another official who, unlike his colleague, courteously informed him - I was present when he took the call - the neighbour's application had been approved and would be sent to council's zoning committee for ratification. My friend asked about his objection. The official said, "What objection? There's nothing on file."
As with the first story, there's a perception and urban myth that if you "know a guy" in council/city, or "pay something under the table" your building plans will get fast-tracked and approved even if they're against code.
A neighbour couldn't get his modest extension approved, but a few years before his neighbour's inappropriate and vastly out-of-scale renovations were permitted.
Are favours being called in and money being passed under the table by largely wealthy and well-resourced developers?
If work is illegal, why is the city not proactive and begin legal proceedings to a) prevent it happening in the first place or halt it by regular building inspections, b) if that fails for whatever reason - the inspector is absent, incompetent or received money under the table - why are they not legally halting building work and/or occupation? And if a) and b) fails, why don't they refuse to connect municipal services to an illegal structure?
But they claim they can't connect municipal services for similarly illegal structures in squatter camps?
Seemingly simple, but not when they're the "guy" the building owner knows or might be the recipient of the "envelope" under the table.
The value of residential property in the suburb in the first case is R3m and more - this is an affluent area. Over a 100 residents have joined the legal fight.
I'm not a lawyer, but my advice would be to have the owner and city as co-respondents to legal papers for damages for the impairment of view, property values etc, bad taste and a construction out of place with the area, incompetence and unjust and irrational administrative action by the city for not preventing or halting the illegal work, etc.
Damages to over 100 residents on a combined property value of over R300m is substantial. Either that or demolish all illegal work.
But more than that, the alleged practice of favours, money under the table, approving inappropriate structures and overlooking illegal building work must be stamped out. It's a creeping stain on the DA's purported clean government
But the city allowed building work to proceed and the structure to be completed. I've seen it. It's ostentatious and inappropriate for that stretch of "garden route".
The complainant tells me the city apparently fined the owner but claims there is now "nothing" they can do - they say they can't order the owner to demolish the illegal building work. The last point is nonsense because there is legal precedent that illegal structures can be demolished. (Incidentally, illegal structures in informal settlements are regularly demolished).
A friend refused to sign a waiver for a neighbour to build a granny flat abutting and overlooking his pool and yard. He received a "strange" call from a city planning official who "aggressively" demanded to know why. His letter of objection stated all that - impairment of view, light, privacy and property values - but he gave the reasons again. This did not satisfy the official who said the department had approved the rezoning application.
A few months later my friend received a call from another official who, unlike his colleague, courteously informed him - I was present when he took the call - the neighbour's application had been approved and would be sent to council's zoning committee for ratification. My friend asked about his objection. The official said, "What objection? There's nothing on file."
As with the first story, there's a perception and urban myth that if you "know a guy" in council/city, or "pay something under the table" your building plans will get fast-tracked and approved even if they're against code.
A neighbour couldn't get his modest extension approved, but a few years before his neighbour's inappropriate and vastly out-of-scale renovations were permitted.
Are favours being called in and money being passed under the table by largely wealthy and well-resourced developers?
If work is illegal, why is the city not proactive and begin legal proceedings to a) prevent it happening in the first place or halt it by regular building inspections, b) if that fails for whatever reason - the inspector is absent, incompetent or received money under the table - why are they not legally halting building work and/or occupation? And if a) and b) fails, why don't they refuse to connect municipal services to an illegal structure?
But they claim they can't connect municipal services for similarly illegal structures in squatter camps?
Seemingly simple, but not when they're the "guy" the building owner knows or might be the recipient of the "envelope" under the table.
The value of residential property in the suburb in the first case is R3m and more - this is an affluent area. Over a 100 residents have joined the legal fight.
I'm not a lawyer, but my advice would be to have the owner and city as co-respondents to legal papers for damages for the impairment of view, property values etc, bad taste and a construction out of place with the area, incompetence and unjust and irrational administrative action by the city for not preventing or halting the illegal work, etc.
Damages to over 100 residents on a combined property value of over R300m is substantial. Either that or demolish all illegal work.
But more than that, the alleged practice of favours, money under the table, approving inappropriate structures and overlooking illegal building work must be stamped out. It's a creeping stain on the DA's purported clean government
Comments
Post a Comment