Developer responds to residents
1 Bompas developer Stuart Grant addressed some of the concerns about his paid-for advertorial, raised by community members.
The advertorial (Gazette, week ending 8 November) raised the ire of residents and community stakeholders, who said it contained several inaccuracies.
Craigpark resident Tim Owen disputed Grant’s claims that the development would not invade residents’ privacy.
Owen said Grant’s use of a cherry-picker raised to the projected height of the building to take photographs was of no consequence, due to its positioning. Grant said it could not have been placed anywhere else on site, as construction had already commenced. He added that the Site Development Plan insisted the western facade windows must be high and sandblasted to prevent a view into neighbouring properties.
On the subject of the impact of the development on property values, Grant remained confident that values would increase. “I have reports from property companies Broll and Pam Golding, as well as from a bank evaluator. The property companies said values would increase, while the evaluator said it wasn’t possible to say whether properties would increase or decrease in value.”
The subject of Hugh Wyndham Park’s wetland status was a matter of semantics, according to Grant. “I never said it wasn’t a wetland. I said it wasn’t a natural wetland. There has always been an underground river there, but the Gautrain construction affected the water table, forcing water to the surface,” he said.
Grant alleged that his proposed upgrade would have increased property values around the park.
When asked about the alleged discovery of two dead bodies on the koppie adjacent to 1 Bompas, Grant said it had happened two or three years ago. “I drove past the site and saw a police van there. I asked what was going on, and was told that two bodies had been found and that they had probably frozen to death. They seemed to have it under control, so I left and gave it no further thought.”
With regard to the allegation that Reea Foundation was to close its residents’ hostel, Grant said he thought his public relations company misunderstood his interpretation of the foundation’s situation.
“We were told they were in a financial crisis. I think the company assumed they were closing their hostel. Neither I nor my attorney instructed the writer to write that. I formally apologise to Reea management and residents for any distress caused,” said Grant.
However, Grant made it clear there was no love lost between the residents’ association and himself.
“At the end of the day, I have the rights to build. I’ve tried to communicate and made every effort to be accommodating, but they cost me millions of rand, stalled building work, and tarnished my reputation through lies.”
So, by Grant’s own admission, the cherry picker photographs which were submitted as proof that neighbour’s privacy would not be affected, is null and void. And yet the city continues as if they are pertinent. SURELY A SECOND LOOK BY THE COUNCIL IS WARRANTED?
The west windows may be sand blasted, but the the south facing windows are of greater consequence and ALSO look into my garden.
The civil-minded developer would have allowed ample space to plant trees along the west side to minimise impact on residents, and yet Grant has had approval for 90% coverage – not only will it be a looming hulk of a building, it will also leave no room for beautification of a nature that will lessen the impact on my property.
It may have cost Grant millions – but millions is all I have to play with considering the current value of my land – millions to Grant is a drop in the ocean, to me is it my personal financial peace of mind that is it stake.
What I find interesting about Stuart Grant’s responses is how he avoids the actual concerns raised. Moreover, the consistent inaccuracies that he reports (in previous articles in this newspaper and in his advertorial) and the way in which simple definitions like what a basement is (the part of a building that it totally or partly below ground) seem to elude him. He is defining the ground floor of his eye-sore building as a basement – a simple dictionary would help to clarify what constitutes a basement. What I am most struck by is that anyone would buy a part of this development given how many inaccuracies he confesses to telling. He has on several occassions claimed that he cares about the community of Craighall Park, yet I have seen a copy of an email (dated 13 June 2013)in which he has stated “tell these people to get f@#$ed!!!!!” referring to the residents. That does NOT sound like someone who cares about a community.
I am outraged by the behaviour of this developer in specific and the behaviour and attitude of the Jhb City Council and Joburg metro Police in general to issues of land use management, by-law enforcement. The Joburg City Council seems to me to be largely incompetent and underresourced and too often corrupt (that is how some of the illegal clubs/bars in Greenside that torment residents in the area got liquor licenses – from now suspended employee).