About Me

My photo

I am a qualified Attorney. I specialise in Property Law, Commercial Law, Corporate Law and Trusts.
Please visit our website at www.prop-law.co.za for more details.
I am an elected Committee Member of the Property Committee of the Association of Pretoria Attorneys and through my involvement, I like to ensure that I am constantly at the "sharp-end" of Conveyancing Practice.

I am the elected Chairman on the Gauteng Council of SAPOA. The South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) is the biggest and most influential institution in the property industry. SAPOA members control about 90% of commercial property in SA, with a combined portfolio in excess of R150 Billion (about $22 Billion). I am also on the National Council and the National Legal Committee of SAPOA.
Member of the Institute of Directors South Africa and Member of the Sirdar Governance Panel.

06 February 2014

11-year battle over panoramic sea views at Concourt

A while ago, I published an article on this topic in Asset Magazine.

You can view the article by clicking HERE.

It will be interesting to hear the conclusions of the Constitutional Court.  However, this specific case seems to revolve around the procedures for approval by the municipality rather than the right to a view.

Gareth Shepperson
Commercial and Property Attorney

11-year battle over panoramic sea views at Concourt

An 11-year battle between a B&B owner and the Hibiscus Coast municipality over a panoramic sea view on the KwaZulu-Natal South Coast reached the Constitutional Court yesterday.

Trevor Turnbull-Jackson, the owner of the Beachcomber Bay lodge in Shelly Beach, has taken his fight to the highest court in the land after the Pietermaritzburg Hight Court dismissed in 2011 his application to review and set aside the Hibiscus Coast municipality's decision to approve building plans submitted by Pearl Star Investments 14 CC.

Turnbull-Jackson and Pearl Star Investments own land next to each other in Margate.

Arguments were presented before the Constitutional Court yesterday that the development impinged on Turnbull-Jackson's sea views and privacy and affected his property value.

The dispute over the development first started around 2003 when Pearl Star Investments applied to construct a six-storey block of flats.

According to heads of argument submitted on behalf of Turnbull-Jackson, the municipality approved the plans in February 2004 but the approval was set aside on appeal.

Meanwhile, the developers had started building the flats and Turnbull-Jackson asked the court to halt construction.

In 2005 it is alleged that the development company lodged further plans to construct two blocks of three-storey flats and sought to incorporate the existing structure on the site.

The municipality approved the plans in July 2005, and Turnbull-Jackson immediately appealed on various grounds, including that the municipal building control officer was not properly qualified or correctly appointed, and that the flats would be unsightly, affect other homeowners' views and privacy and diminish the value of his property by up to 30 percent.

Turnbull-Jackson went to court to interdict the developer from continuing with the construction pending the outcome of the legal proceedings.

In November 2006, Pearl Star Investments allegedly lodged fresh plans with the municipality, which were approved on November 20, 2007.

Turnbull-Jackson again appealed, but lost.

He took the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal, where he was unsuccessful.

At the Constitutional Court, Turnbull-Jackson based his appeal on the same grounds, but also challenged the impartiality of the building control officer and the officer's alleged failure to adhere to provisions of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act.

It was also argued that he was deprived of an opportunity to make representations before the plans were approved, that it was unclear who must prove the presence or absence of disqualifying factors in terms of the Building Standards Act.

The municipality argues that the approval in this case complies with the law.

It acknowledges potential uncertainty as to who must prove the disqualifying factors, but argues that this makes no difference and that the appeal should still be dismissed.

Judgment has been reserved.

Daily News

No comments:

Post a Comment