PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: ERF 5049 MILNERTON (177 ATHENS ROAD, TABLE VIEW) – OBJECTION SUBMISSION

The Table View community has received another application for a 15-unit block of flats in an otherwise Single Residential area. Our local infrastructure simply cannot cope with further high-density developments.

Community Challenges Facing Table View:

Transportation & Traffic: Public transportation is at or near capacity during peak hours, forcing residents commuting outside the CBD to rely heavily on private vehicles.
Public Services & Healthcare: The area lacks essential public healthcare facilities—including clinics and hospitals—requiring residents to travel outside the area for standard medical care.
Education Infrastructure: Local public schools are completely at capacity, leaving parents with no option but expensive private education.

Application & Objection Details:

Property: Erf 5049 Milnerton (177 Athens Road, Table View)
Proposal: Rezoning from Residential 1 (R1) to General Residential 3 (GR3), removal of restrictive title deed conditions, deletion of township establishment conditions, and permanent departures for floor factor, coverage, and setback distances.
City Closing Date for Objections: 04 September 2026

To review or download the full land-use application, click the button below:

[Download Application PDF]

Submit Your Objection

Have your voice heard! Use the Speak Out form below to submit your objection directly to the City of Cape Town. You can customize the pre-filled objection text before submitting to ensure your personal concerns are included.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: ERF 5049 MILNERTON (177 ATHENS ROAD, TABLE VIEW) – OBJECTION SUBMISSION

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & SUBJECT MATTER
The Greater Table View Action Forum (GTAF) hereby formally lodges a strong objection to Case ID 1500160185 for Erf 5049 Milnerton (177 Athens Road, Table View). The applicant seeks: 
•	Rezoning from Residential 1 (R1) to General Residential 3 (GR3) to allow a 15-unit multi-storey block of flats. 
•	Removal of Restrictive Title Deed Conditions B.A.(b), B.A.(c), and B.A.(d) under Title Deed T55224/2018 and the amendment/deletion of original township establishment conditions. 
•	Permanent Departures for Floor Factor (1.357 in lieu of 1.25), Coverage (66% in lieu of 60%), and Common Boundary Setbacks (0m in lieu of 4.5m) for ground-floor storerooms. 
GTAF submits that the proposed development constitutes severe over-development, fails to meet the adjudication criteria set out in Section 99 of the City of Cape Town Municipal Planning By-Law (MPBL), and violates applicable national, provincial, and local planning frameworks.

2. GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
A. Over-Bulking, Excessive Departures & Over-Development (MPBL Section 99)
1.	Unjustified Departure Requests: The applicant is requesting a major rezoning from single-dwelling residential (R1) to multi-family residential (GR3). However, despite seeking a far higher zoning category, the applicant still cannot fit the proposed 15-unit structure within GR3 parameter rules and requires multiple departures (floor factor, coverage, and setbacks). 
2.	Floor Factor & Coverage Violations: Permitting a floor factor of 1.357 (1 362 m²) and a coverage of 66% on a standard 1 004 m² residential erf represents excessive over-bulking. 
3.	Boundary Setback Encroachments: Reducing common boundary setbacks from 4.5m to 0m along the North and East boundaries for storerooms impacts adjoining single-residential properties in terms of massing, overshadowing, and loss of visual buffer.
4.	 
B. Title Deed Restrictions & Deletion of Township Conditions
1.	Removal of Restrictive Conditions: Title deed conditions B.A.(b), (c), and (d) were registered to protect the low-density, single-family residential character, streetscapes, and open spatial qualities of Table View Township.

2.	Legislative Evaluation (SPLUMA S47, LUPA S39(5), MPBL S48(4)):
o	Financial & Personal Value to Neighbors: Adjoining owners acquired property relying on the spatial protections afforded by the title deed restrictions. Removing them creates an adverse precedent, directly impacting neighbouring property values and quiet enjoyment.
o	Social Benefit Balance: The commercial financial gain to a private developer does not outweigh the cumulative social loss to the surrounding single-residential neighbourhood.
o	
C. Incompatibility with Surrounding Neighborhood Character & Privacy Impacts
1.	Contextual Incompatibility: Athens Road is predominantly a low-density suburban street dominated by single-dwelling single-storey homes. Introducing a dense 15-unit multi-storey block creates a severe architectural and height clash.
 
2.	Privacy, Overlooking, and Overshadowing: The height and bulk of the multi-level structure create unacceptable overlooking and privacy intrusion onto adjacent backyards and private recreational spaces on adjoining properties.

D. Traffic, Infrastructure Strain, and Services Capacity
1.	Traffic & Parking: Adding 15 residential units and associated vehicle traffic onto Athens Road creates localized congestion near intersections connecting to main arteries.
2.	Public Transport: The application site is only served by the loss making MyCiti bus service. The City incorrectly deem this as a high-level public transport system which is an incorrect claim given the restricted capacity compared to rail transport. The service only serves the CBD as the only employment hot spot area. This service is already nearing capacity during peak hours. It is false to claim that this service is a full BRT line given that this line is restricted to one lane in Milnerton. This must cause a tidal flow use which contravenes the guidance in the TOD (Transport Orientated Transport) policy.

3.	Bulk Services & Potsdam WWTW Capacity: The Table View / Blaauwberg area faces ongoing pressure regarding bulk infrastructure, particularly wastewater treatment capacity (Potsdam WWTW) and stormwater management. Intensifying land use from 1 dwelling to 15 units puts further unmitigated pressure on existing municipal service networks.

3. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
A. City of Cape Town Municipal Planning By-Law (MPBL): 
Section 99 requires that applications must be desirable, must not negatively impact existing rights, and must not result in an adverse socio-economic or built environment impact. The proposed over-bulking fails the test of desirability under Section 99(3).

B. Blaauwberg Road LSDF & District Spatial Development Framework:
1.	Policies dictate that densification outside the primary corridor must be contextual and sensitive to surrounding suburban areas. Incremental densification must respect neighbourhood scale rather than impose maximum bulk via departures. 
2.	The provision of parking bays will increase the reliance on private vehicles rather than encouraging the use of public transport. 
3.	The Blaauwberg District Plan confirms that decisions in this area. Must be within context with the area.
4.	The City of Cape Town has allowed residential only development of Blaauwberg Road. Whilst continuing to refer to this road as an activity route. In so doing it has failed to encourage development that would provide space for employment. 
5.	The City of Cape Town has wrongly described Blaauwberg Road as the Urban Inner Core. It is possible activity route in a suburb in the edge of the City. It is not Urban. It is not Inner and it is not core.

C. IDP (Integrated Development Plan) (CITP) Comprehensive Integrated Transport Plan:
1.	Both the IDP and CIPT policies track the current travel time to and from work. 
2.	They both state a desired reduction in travel time and cost to and from work and to access public services. 
3.	The application only provides access to a limited MyCiti service that accesses CDB only. It then provides parking bays and encourages the use of private vehicles for people who work in the other employment areas. This will leave residents with long and expensive travel times to work and to access public services that are not available within the Table View Area.

D.LUPA (Section 39(5)) & SPLUMA (Section 47): Mandates that the removal of restrictive conditions must carefully balance public interest and private rights, ensuring that existing property rights are not arbitrarily diminished. 
E. Blaauwberg Road LSDF: Contradictory Parking & Transit Approach under the Blaauwberg Road LSDF: Furthermore, the application fails to align with the strategic parking and public transport objectives set out in the Blaauwberg Road LSDF. While the broader Framework advocates for the implementation of reduced or zero-parking requirements (such as PT2 provisions) to discourage private car ownership and promote transit-oriented development, this strategy relies entirely on an effective, high-capacity public transport system. By making provision for off-street parking bays on this site, the applicant actively promotes continued reliance on private vehicular traffic rather than transit usage. Conversely, forcing high densities without adequate parking on a secondary suburban feeder road like Athens Road simply decants vehicle overflow onto adjacent single-residential streets, creating severe localized traffic congestion.

F. National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 (Section 7):
•	Section 7 mandates that no approval can be granted for a development that causes visual disfigurement, is unsightly, or results in a derogation of value to neighbouring properties. The current application directly triggers these statutory prohibitions.
•	Unsightly & Out of Character: The proposed 15-unit, multi-storey block introduces an aggressive, massive, and dense built form into a streetscape defined by low-density, single-storey suburban homes. The scale and zero-meter setback departures create an unsightly, visually intrusive structure that disfigures the streetscape. 
•	Derogation of Property Value: By compromising neighbouring privacy, casting excessive shadows, blocking natural light, and removing protective title deed restrictions, the proposed development directly and negatively impacts the market value and financial enjoyment of surrounding properties.

4. CONCLUSION & RELIEF SOUGHT
The Greater Table View Action Forum (GTAF) respectfully submits that:
1.	The application for Rezoning to GR3, together with the Removal of Restrictive Title Conditions and Deletion of Township Conditions, should be REFUSED. 
2.	The requested Permanent Departures (floor factor, coverage, setback) should be REFUSED as they represent over-development of the site.
3.	REFUSE the application in terms of Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977, as the proposed building will be visually intrusive/unsightly and will cause a direct derogation of value to adjoining properties
4.	Should the City be inclined to consider densification on Erf 5049, it should be restricted to a lower intensity design that strictly complies with standard built-environment controls, respects neighbouring privacy, and remains within the existing title deed parameters. We could support this application is restricted to two storeys.

GTAF reserves the right to present oral submissions at any Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) meeting convened to decide this matter.

You can add formatting using markdown syntax - read more

Add me to your mailing list

BCC yourself

1 signatures

Submit Your Objection

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: ERF 5049 MILNERTON (177 ATHENS ROAD, TABLE VIEW) – OBJECTION SUBMISSION

Leave a Reply Cancel reply