Court finds Sea Point flats approval unlawful but allows construction to continue

Tags

---

10-09-2026
Read : 10 times
Atlantic Sun
Source

The Western Cape High Court has declared the City of Cape Town’s approval of building plans for a controversial development on St Johns Road, Sea Point, unlawful.

Acting judge Ashley Kantor exercised judicial discretion under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), declining to set aside the approvals and allowing construction to proceed.

The judgment was handed down on Monday, September 7, regarding the application brought by Save Our Sea Point Residents’ Association (SOSRA) against SBG Real Estate, the Sky Trust and the City, focused on Erven 1056 and 1057 on St Johns Road. 

The association challenged the City's June 2024 decision to approve plans for a five-storey block of flats.

Dispute centred on building setback

The core dispute rested on the interpretation of the City’s Development Management Scheme (DMS).

The developers sought to build within 1.68metres of the rear common boundary, claiming a DMS "exception" allowing for a 0.0metre setback.

The default requirement is a 4.5metre building line.

Judge Kantor ruled in favour of the residents on the legal interpretation, clarifying that the 0.0metre exception applied strictly to common boundaries that physically intersect a street boundary.

Because the rear boundary does not intersect St Johns Road, the 4.5-metre setback applies, making the approved plans non-compliant.

"The applicant shall pay the wasted costs of the day of 11 June 2026, with Scale B in terms of Rule 67A read with Rule 69 applying. 

"The first respondent and the second respondent shall, save as ordered in paragraph 4 above, pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, with Scale B in terms of Rule 67A read with Rule 69 applying," read the judgment. 

SOSRA chairman Lindsay Rogers said while the court had ruled fully in their favour it however resolved not to set aside the plans, "in the exercise of discretion of the court".   

The court extended the 180-day filing period to the date the application was instituted, but ultimately declined to set aside the building plans.

Rogers said: "We are acutely disappointed with this outcome. Yet another, merely pyrrhic victory, as 'winning' the case has brought with it zero relief".

He said that there is a common theme existent in the public's quest to challenge the excesses of the development industry.

"The City authority continually fails to enforce regulation, designed to protect the existing rights and amenities of established area residents.

"The supposedly independent MPT fails to arbitrate such misalignment by habitually siding with the City's recommendations," he said.

Next step 

Deputy mayor and mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment Eddie Andrews said that the City would study the judgment and its implications.

"The City will comment further in due course and advise on the appropriate course of action once this process has been concluded," he said.