Townships Board's decision on Checkers DC - Midrand Estates

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The height of a building in the TTPS is the height of any part of the building as measuredvertically from the ground level of the footprint of the building to the highest point of the buildingas indicated in the diagrams in Clause 26. 23 The letter/application then came to the conclusion:-“Therefore for the buildings to comply with the definition of height as described in the TTPS theheight in respect of these properties should be increased to a maximum of 26m.”The Investigating Committee held the view that the above quoted conclusion went over a hurdle withoutexplaining how the application came to the 26m applied for.(11.2) The second respondent’s Heads of Argument (Exhibit 10) did not assist the Board to overcome theproblem the Board had with the conclusion in the immediate preceding sub-paragraph. The secondrespondent with regard to the existing rights stated that the second respondent, having regard to theCenturion Scheme, was entitled to construct the wall structure to a height of 10,5m, i.e. a two storeyheight. When the first respondent granted its approval for an increase in height to 25m, so said thesecond respondent, the first respondent wished to dovetail the second respondent’s rights with theTTPS and merely reconfirmed the existing rights which the second respondent previously acquired. 24That conclusion did not bring clarity because three different parties had three different views whatthe height of the building should have been if they all had the dovetail requirements of the secondrespondent in mind. Ella du Plessis on behalf of the second respondent applied for 26m. A report that served before the Building Controls Section that (according to the first respondent)had delegated authority as indicated earlier, stated:-“In terms of the Tshwane Town Planning Scheme 2008 the height is restricted to 18,0m andthe exercised is 21,0m”. 25 (Accent added). The first respondent in possession of all the above information granted 25m.(11.3) The Investigating Committee in an attempt to get clarity asked Ella du Plessis during examination wherethe balance of 14,5m (25m -10,5m = 14,5m) were to be found. Her answer was:-“In the roof”.This reply differs from what the representative of the first respondent replied to the same question. Shesaid that part of the 14,5m was in the landfill. The second respondent holds a different view. The secondrespondent explained that where a platform is constructed by excavating a portion of higher laying landand using the same material to fill up the lower laying area, the platform will have been constructed atground level being the average between the highest and the lowest laying area. The platform inquestion, explained the second respondent, was constructed as aforesaid, with the result that groundlevel equals the level of the platform. 2623 The diagrams in Clause 26 clearly shows that the height of a building in terms of the TTPS is measured to the top of the roof.24 Exh. 10, p. 7, paragraph 14.25 Exh. 12, p.25, paragraph 2, report by Building Control.26 Exh. 10, p.7, paragraph 14.
(11.4) Finally, with regard to the letter of Ella du Plessis, the photograph annexed to Exhibit 12 as AR7 27shows the difference in height that the parties mentioned above have encountered. The new building isin fact higher than the existing building. That difference in height negates:- Ella du Plessis’ statement in the letter that the new building will be the same height as the previousbuilding. The second respondent’s submission that by granting an increase in height to 25,0m, the firstrespondent merely converted to meters the erstwhile applicable height. 28The Board does not believe that Table D of the TTPS (on which the second respondent relies) appliesto this matter. What is significant to the Board in regard to Table D is the fact that Table D describeswhat height the TTPS has in mind for an “Industrial 2” building where Table D does apply. Thestandard/benchmark is 18m, the height that also featured in the report that served before the structurethat improved the increase in height. If Table D did apply the height would have been 18,0m and thephotograph referred to above would (if correctly applied) shown that the extension of the building wouldhave been lower than the existing. There is nothing in the TTPS that requires an extension of a buildingto be as high as the existing, if the new scheme is correctly applied to a building constructed pursuant tothe repealed scheme, as both respondents seem to suggest.(11.5) The Board’s own investigation of the building plans handed up did not assist the Board to clear up theconfusion:(11.5.1) Exhibit 9 was handed up by the second respondent after the evidence of Ella du Plessis inresponse to a request by the Investigating Committee for copies of the plans that accompaniedthe application.(11.5.2) Drawing 2250 prepared by architects and titled Dry Goods Centre : South and West Elevationsand Section, dated 15 November 2009 (original date), shows:- The height of the wall: 13,5m (as opposed to the 10,5m). The total height of the buildings: 22m as opposed to the measurements of the threeother parties referred to in paragraph (11.2) above.The Board does not find a stamp of approval of that plan on the document itself, but refers to itas a record of what accompanied the application. It would have at least recorded the existingposition.(11.5.3) Drawing 502/06/204, dated 18 May 2009, prepared by consulting engineers titled Fire Plan andapproved by the Council on 3 September 2009, was handed up by the appellant as part ofExhibit 11, being part of the information gathered from the first respondent during the visitreferred to in paragraph (14.4) below. The Board investigated that plan and found:- The height of the wall: 14m The total height of the building: 24,5m(11.5.4) Not one of the plans inspected by the Board confirms Ella du Plessis’s statement that 14,5mare to be found in the roof.27 Exh, 12, p.29 (paginated).28 Exh. 10, p.8, paragraph15.
Page 1: Department of Economic DevelopmentP
Page 4 and 5: (5.3) The second respondent, after
Page 6 and 7: (4) Where the height of a building
Page 8: (10) The appellant critizises the f
Page 13 and 14: (13) The Board returns to an A/S 94
Page 15 and 16: (14.5) The second respondent conten
Page 17: (17) The second respondent did not
Page 21 and 22: that industries along the highway h
Page 23: ID5650(0005)1

Townships Board's decision on Checkers DC - Midrand Estates

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?