. The Milnerton Ridge Ratepayers Association (MRRA) has called on the City of Cape Town to investigate claims that a plan for two separate residential properties were approved without engagement from neighbours.
Image: Supplied
Cape Town - The Milnerton Ridge Ratepayers Association (MRRA) has called on the City of Cape Town to investigate claims that a plan for two separate residential properties were approved without engagement from neighbours who may be affected by changes to privacy, noise, air pollution from an open braai area, and security concerns.
Ané Janse van Rensburg, chairperson of the MRRA, told the Cape Argus that five households were affected and raised their grievances with the City.
Building plans and photographs were shared with the Cape Argus and may not be printed due to the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA).
The properties located in the greater Milnerton Ridge community are owned by a distribution company and numerous emails were sent to its main contractor this week, who has yet to respond to the Cape Argus about the claims, including providing details for the owners.
Janse Van Rensburg said they believed the City had bypassed the process of public participation and were concerned that neighbours' rights would be infringed.
She said the plans allowed windows on higher floors of multi‑storey buildings to look directly into neighbouring bedrooms and/or over the swimming pool; and that it would infringe on noise as well as privacy.
“What mitigating factors are considered and implemented? More specifically, would the City insist that: windows with a line of sight into neighbouring bedrooms/over swimming pools, which are intimately private spaces and should enjoy protection, must be opaque? If not, why not?
“Entertainment areas of the property to be densified, must face away from the neighbouring properties (i.e.inwards into the property to be densified).
“There is ample space available at Subject Property 1 for the ground floor layouts indicated on the approved plans to be inverted so as to face inwards (and not onto the boundary of the adjacent properties), and this seems to be a simple solution.”
She said they also argued how an entertainment area with a patio or braai had no roof, and that more such developments could cause an increase in rates and overcrowding.
“It has been well documented that, prior to the current redevelopment for densification, there were overcrowding and noise nuisance issues at Subject Property 2, which the City’s Law Enforcement Unit attended to,” she said.
. .
Image: Supplied
“The manner in which the City is implementing its densification policies is to the detriment and total exclusion from the process of adjacent property owners.
"The risk that otherwise law-abiding citizens will lose (and perhaps already have lost) trust in the City and take measures to secure their privacy, etc without the required application/approvals, leading to a total chaos in areas where densification is implemented without the City allowing for public participation and/or protection of rights properties adjacent to those to be densified.
“If the City’s policy is to not allow a public participation process, or at the very least a process of engagement with direct neighbours, then logic would dictate that the City has a duty to consider and protect the constitutional rights of adjacent property owners in the process of planning approval of densification of properties such as Subject Property.”
The City’s Deputy Mayor and mayco member for Spatial Planning and Environment, Eddie Andrews, said the matter is under investigation.
“An email, which is still under consideration, was sent to the district office on Sunday, 23 February 2025, raising the same issues,” he said.
“No feedback was provided as the matter is still under investigation. The City will revert to the complainant during the course of the week.”