OBJECTION TO REZONING Res1 to Res 4: RE/208 OBSERVATORY- Ref: 20-01-6653

Background:

It has come to our attention that the owner of the stand at 5 Judith Street, Observatory, where illegal building has been taking place, has submitted a request that the stand be rezoned. The request is that the stand be rezoned from ‘Residential 1’ to ‘Residential 4’.

The Objection

We, the residents of Observatory, Johannesburg wish to lodge an objection to the above application on several grounds.

• A development under ‘Residential 4’ would potentially allow high-density, multi-story, residential buildings, typically allowing for 41 to 120 dwelling units per hectare, and potentially also for the operation of a church, hotel or tavern, amongst other possible usages. This would be out of character with the surrounding area.
• The zoning appears to be issued for an area outside our borders, as it refers to streets not within the immediate proximity of the building's location (for example, reference to access being via “Hettie Street”).
• A full development, if realised, would increase demand on municipal services. The water infrastructure is already crumbling and leaks break-out repeatedly at areas already repaired on Judith Street in particular and elsewhere.
• The Zoning at the property is currently ‘Residential 1’, with several sub-divisions. This is well in line with the densification aims of the city.
• There is only 1 property in the area, erf 731 of 5654 M2, that managed to get ‘Residential 4’ approval some time ago. This property has direct access to the daytime boom at Kloof street and Eckstein Street, and thus does not increase traffic pressure in the Observatory Estate Residents Forum (OERF) Enclosure. The Business 1 development on erf 473, 10 Kloof Street, is unsuccessful, unsustainable and crumbling.
• Traffic: The property is close to the end of a cul-de-sac in the OERF Enclosure, which would mean that traffic would need to be diverted through the limited number of boom gates into the Enclosure.
• Having viewed the proposed submitted plan, we note that a sub-division or re-zoning to ‘Residential 2’ (not ‘Residential 4) would be adequate for the applicant’s stated purpose.
• The envisaged development (flat-roof, ‘back yard dwellings’) will negatively affect property values, and discourage further sustainable investment in the area. Relatedly, if rezoning to ‘Residential 4’ is granted, this will set a negative precedent for the area, that would further negatively impact property values in the area.
• The claim of a “high quality” development is strongly contradicted by the poorly conceived industrial flat roof new structures and the materials being used, which are very basic in comparison with existing homes. Many of the rooms are particularly small and not consistent with the existing Observatory residential standards. One would also expect the walls to be cavity walls, as required by SANS 10400XA.
• The plan submitted, assumed to be a ‘Site Development Plan’, but not labelled as such, shows no entrance, driveway or parking arrangement.
• Area calculations pertaining to floor space, depicting floor area ratio etc. are not included in the plans submitted with the application.
• The proposal is not “in line with the surrounding character and nature of the area”. The aesthetics do not “maintain the neighbourhood character” and stand in contrast to the surrounding residences and roofs.
• The ideal of social inclusion and transformation is well established without resorting to a rezoning. Observatory is a model of sustainable transformation and social inclusion.
• We do not object to investment, development and densification in principle.
• The Application is ill-considered and poorly motivated. Much of it appears to be a ‘cut-and-paste’ document with little consideration for the common interest or nature of Observatory.
• The description of the project in the rezoning application document does not align with the plans submitted as part of the request.

NOTE:
There is a deficit of trust that what is proposed in the application will actually occur, on account of the following considerations:

• Building work started on this property without approved plans and had to be stopped by JMPD, amongst others.
• We have been informed by a resident from the property that one of the illegally constructed structures recently collapsed. This means that building standards and regulations had not been complied with; and this in turn presents a safety risk to those who utilise the already, and the to be, constructed buildings.
• It would appear that the plans and application were prepared hastily after the building work was reported and stopped.
• The illegal work corresponding to the ‘GROUND FLOOR PLAN (STUDIO)’ and ‘FIRST FLOOR PLAN’ is continuing in spite of orders to stop. The loading of building materials has been moved from the pavement to inside the property, out of sight.
• We have information that the building is connected to a church, and it seems that the space indicated in the plan to be Gym/Store/Studio is in fact intended to be used as a space for worship.
• There has been no attempt to inform neighbours about the site development or building work. Nor have notices been put up informing neighbouring residents that a request for the rezoning of the property has been submitted to CoJ.

For all of the reasons above, we (the residents of Observatory) object to the rezoning request that has been submitted to CoJ pertaining to stand RE/208 Observatory.
Signed,
The residents of Observatory