INLSA
Construction of these houses on the KZN South Coast is well under way, but the Hibiscus Coast municipality says they are being built illegally and wants them demolished.
Three plush new holiday homes on the KwaZulu-Natal South Coast were facing demolition because, the local authority alleged, their owners had cocked a snook at the law, not having submitted plans and ignoring all “stop construction” notices.
The Hibiscus Coast municipality applied to the Durban High Court for an order authorising it to demolish all illegal construction work and structures on the site in Southport, the costs to be borne by the owners, Susan Lourens of Nelspruit and Lourens Jacobus Pretorius of White River.
The 1 000m² site was bought by Crimson King Properties – with Lourens and Pretorius listed as directors – in 2007 for R1.8 million.
In an affidavit which came before Judge Johan Ploos van Amstel, the municipality’s law enforcement officer, Thabani Mboyisa, said the property was zoned “residential only 2” – which restricted development, only allowing the construction of a single family dwelling.
According to the town planning scheme, multi-units can only be constructed on plots of at least 1 500m².
In July 2010 the municipality became aware that the property was being developed and building was under way.
Construction of these houses on the KZN South Coast is well under way, but the Hibiscus Coast municipality says they are being built illegally.
INLSA
According to records, no building plans had been submitted for approval and a site inspection was done later that month, when it was established that building work was at an advanced stage.
“A control officer informed builders that the work was illegal and that they should stop.
“The following day we issued a contravention notice in writing to the company, informing them that they were breaking the law and asking that they make the necessary arrangements to rectify the situation within 21 days.”
Mboyisa said a follow-up inspection was done the following month and building work was still in progress. Another contravention notice was issued.
In February last year, photographs were taken on site which showed that “more than one multi-storey building” was going up.
A concrete bridge had been built over a natural stream which flows through the property and natural and indigenous flora had been cleared without consent.
Mboyisa said the matter had then been handed over to attorneys to deal with.
After sending a letter threatening the demolition application, the municipality’s lawyer, Larry Seethal, received a letter from a local architectural firm saying it had been appointed by the owners to prepare a set of “as built” drawings.
The company said it was in the process of preparing the drawings and the owner was “dealing with other environmental and planning issues” which needed to be resolved.
Mboyisa was then given a copy of a “detail plan” prepared by a neighbour – a surveyor – in February 2010.
This depicted three separate dwellings with features such as a pond, driveway, bridge and retaining walls, “which is not in conformity with the zoning use”, he said.
But still no “as built” plans were submitted for approval and construction continued regardless.
Photographs taken in February, which were attached to the court papers, showed that the development now included a swimming pool.
Mboyisa said that in these cases the municipality often encountered a difficulty, with courts reluctant to grant demolition orders because of the wasted costs.
“The feeling of the courts is that the prejudice of the party who built (assuming he did so in good faith, albeit illegally), may significantly outweigh the prejudice caused to the party whose rights have been infringed.
“In this case, there can be no suggestion that the development was undertaken in good faith, but rather purposefully and designedly to circumvent the law… and with the aim of presenting the illegal building work as a fait accompli for approval.”
Advocate Paddy Prior, for the municipality, said Lourens and Pretorius had now given an undertaking to stop work pending the outcome of the court application.
They were to file their opposing papers later this month.
