The Craigpark Residents Association do not want to get involved in a war of words in the press, but due to tactics being used by Stuart Grant who placed an advertorial in the Gazette, we have been forced to set the record straight.
We urge the editors to not let economic gain cloud their responsibility to report the truth, and not allow anyone who walks through their door to use the Gazette as a paid-for tool to badger volunteer community organisations.
The concerns around 1 Bompas are because it is a large office complex situated on a high ridge next to a residential area. The zoning in force permits four storeys and 60 percent coverage of the stand, but the city council approved two storeys above-ground basement parking area, so permitting a six storey building that covers 90 percent of the property.
There is minimal provision for landscaping to mitigate the effect of such bulk in close proximity to a largely residential area or to allow for rehabilitation of the damaged koppie.
As Grant acknowledged, counter to previous assertions in the Gazette, building commenced in November 2012 before any plans were submitted or approved, and continued in spite of two stop orders issued by the city council.
We obtained a High Court interdict, using member money, to put further building on hold until all plans were finally approved. We believed the city council would take into consideration the concerns of many residents who would be affected.
We are not happy with the city council and its lack of community consultation. According to legal opinion obtained by us, the clauses invoked by Rick Raven Planners to obtain ‘consent use’ for the relaxation of building lines and increased height are procedures in conflict with the Constitution, and so may be contested – and we will.
Bompas Road users know traffic congestion is a major problem. For eight months we’ve asked to see a traffic impact study. It is strange that neither developer nor city council has made such information available.
A number of extraneous points raised in the advertorial where facts were distorted include, but are not limited to:
We ‘flatly refused’ to allow Grant to upgrade Hugh Wyndham Park. Fact: He called a meeting with City Parks on 29 October 2012 to offer to dispose of excavated soil by creating a sports field or filling in the ‘swamp’. City Parks asked for community representatives to attend the meeting. The representatives present said the community would have to be consulted via a public meeting chaired by the ward councillor.
City Parks’ Oscar Oliphant subsequently wrote, “We… asked the conservation department to give their professional, unbiased opinion on it.” No representatives heard anything further, and it was presumed City Parks decided not to take the matter further.
Reference to Reea’s rezoning application. Fact: We took professional town planning advice. Objections were submitted by ourselves and some 20 residents. There has been no further communication, and it is assumed the application lapsed.
The cherry-picker example. Pictures taken from an adjacent property, with the building not yet at its final height, show builders can already look directly into the property.
We take exception to the defamatory statements made about our executive members and the statement that we act in our own interests. We give of our time to help residents and to provide an effective collective voice for the good of our area and property investments.
Our involvement in this matter has been a lengthy attempt to protect the rights of property owners in the vicinity, and as reported in the Gazette, community members present at our last AGM voted overwhelmingly to address this matter.
That residents feel strongly about this is evident. Some 110 objections to the rezoning application were received.
Grant is not a community-minded person as he asserts in his advertorial. He told us we have no jurisdiction over the land his development is on, he is not an association member despite living in Craigpark, he has not attended any association AGMs, and he does not subscribe to our community security initiative.
Our greatest disappointment is with the city council and its failure to consult the community against its mandate as per the constitution of South Africa.
Any community without an impartial body to take up matters on its behalf will become increasingly vulnerable, and 1 Bompas is an example of that. We cannot exist without your support, and hope even more property owners will become members in 2014.
