Camps Bay ratepayers to appeal dismissed hotel case

The Camps Bay and Clifton Ratepayers’ Association (CBCRA) says it will appeal the Western Cape High Court’s decision to allow a hotel to be built on Victoria Road.

The CBCRA said it is disappointed with Justice CMJ Fortuin’s High Court decision, which was delivered on August 21, approximately 15 months after the ratepayers filed the application.

They are opposed to the development of the five-star hotel, designed by Scott and Partners, which is under way on Erf 3349, where the Place of the Bay hotel once stood (“Ratepayers ready to halt beachfront development”, March 9, 2023; “CBCRA takes building matter to court”, November 2, 2023).

Last week, in an open letter to CBCRA (Atlantic Sun letters, August 29), the City had harsh words for the CBCRA.

“The Western Cape High Court dismissed the application by the CBCRA (and one other) to overturn the City of Cape Town’s approval of the Camps Bay Beach Hotel development.

“The Court found no basis for the application, ‘no reviewable action by the City’, and found the City’s decision to have been ‘lawful and reasonable’. The Court also ordered the applicants — the CBCRA — to pay the costs of three Counsel.”

The City said while it appreciates an open and frank relationship with all ratepayers’ organisations, these engagements should be conducted with mutual respect.

“However, in March 2024, the CBCRA distributed a newsletter to residents about this case which went beyond mere criticism, stretching to impugning the integrity and motives of the City’s decision making processes,” the City letter said.

Chris Willemse, the chairman of the CBCRA, said the CBCRA was painted as being anti-development.

“As people who live in the past – in short, we were painted as downright looney. We were never against the development of the hotel site. But we are against a five-storey building, which creates further parking and traffic problems on the beachfront. We are not unreasonable in what we ask. If we were, the mayor would not have agreed with us in August 2021, when he refused to reduce the off-street parking requirements for the hotel development. When the Court dismissed our case, it also granted the costs orders which the City and the Mayor pursued against the CBCRA and the resident in Van Kamp Street, who also went to Court with us.”

According to Mr Willemse, 94 Camps Bay residents sought legal advice against the hotel development. The CBCRA consulted with various ratepayer associations and discovered a common theme: the City's disregard for existing property owners' rights and views in planning issues.

“The City cloaks its dystopian vision in its letter of 24 August 2024; and actually states that owners of property in Camps Bay and Clifton ‘should expect and plan’ for development. How does one do that if there are no rules and regulations to rely upon due to the City riding roughshod over its own planning scheme in favour of development at any cost?”

Eddie Andrews, the City’s deputy mayor and mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment, says the City is constrained to operate within a prescribed legal framework and it will continue to deal with applications in this manner.

“The court's decision affirms that the City’s administrative actions were both lawful and reasonable. The planning process set out in planning legislation allows for the input of those who are materially and adversely affected and allows for an appeal process,” Mr Andrews said.

“Municipalities have an obligation to defend their decisions which can prevent costly future disputes by clarifying legal and regulatory standards. Municipal decisions often impact a wide range of stakeholders and defending decisions helps protect the broader interest of communities ensuring that by-laws and policies designed for the public good are upheld. This judgment is an important consideration for potential future challenges.”

Mr Andrews said the City hopes that applicants will examine the concerns stated by the judge in this case before starting review proceedings.

“The City was successful in defending the decisions taken in this case and the multiple grounds on which it was challenged. The Court awarded costs to the City. The Court has a discretion in the awarding of costs and in this case, costs followed the result. The Judge gave reasons for granting the costs order in her judgment,” he said.

He said the court’s criticism of the applicants’ “scattergun” approach and “constitutional afterthought” demonstrates the need for clear, concentrated legal arguments.