From: Leslie London
Sent: Friday, 21 February 2020 21:24
To: Patrick Chapple
Subject: FW: Power Failure Observatory
Dear Paddy
We view this matter in a very serious light.
This is the latest in a series of infringements by the owner of this property who has gone about his development in the most cavalier and insensitive and sometimes illegal manner.
As you know, Himmy Abader is the developer of the property and 249 Lower Main and was the man who tried to steal the OCA by falsely registering friends and family at our November 2018 AGM so that they would vote for him and his acolytes in trying to capture the OCA. He did so precisely because the OCA did not support his development. For good reason.
He has, in the course of constructing this building:
- Demolished a wall dangerously, raining rubble on the neighbours yards, including a children’s trampoline. A complaint was lodged.
- Begun constructing an extra floor without plan approval (he was stopped after a complaint was lodged and is only now seeking approval).
- Installed air conditioning backing onto neighbours property without it being in his plans. A complaint has been lodged.
- Advertised the development for rental as apartments when the MPT approved it solely as a backpacker (for which he had numerous departure approved). A complaint has been lodged.
- Now his construction has destroyed a cable and a whole section of Observatory is without power.
This is outrageous. Can you expedite the urgent action by the building inspectors in this matter?
Thanks
Leslie
From: Leslie London
Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2020 00:39
To: Patrick Chapple
Subject: RE: Power Failure Observatory
Paddy
Can you advise if there is any follow up on this matter?
Has there been an investigation and will we be able to get a copy of the investigation report?
Thanks
Leslie
From: Marc Turok
Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2020 23:17
To: Leslie London
Cc: Patrick Chapple ; Johan X Gerber
Subject: Re: Power Failure Observatory
The other thing that I find unusual about the project is that half of the building on the Lower Main Road side is not according to the orriginal plan that proposed a new building to replace the resisting buildings. I may be the only person who has not been informed about this variation to the plans or possibly no one has noticed this? I would like to have an explanation what is going on, how it was changed and why. Is this just a temporary delay or is this a permanent changed design?
Marc
On Wed, 27 May 2020, 21:43 Leslie London wrote:
Dear Paddy
I am following up about feedback on this matter.
Could you forward me the report of the investigation into the incident below as I requested?
I forwarded you a further example of a violation related to this development which involved bricking up a gate on a servitude which he is not entitled to do. Although it is prima facie, a violation of the building regulations, we understand that no inspectors are able to go down to investiate. It seems he thinks the developer appears to think he can act with impunity and we have not seen any action taken against him despite multiple transgression of national and municipal law.
We have reported six major problems:
- He demolished a wall without any precautions raining rubble into neighbours’ back yards. Seemingly no action was taken against him.
- His contractors ripped up underground electricity cables which left large parts of Observatory without electricity for more than 24 hours while repairs were undertaken. We are not aware of any action taken against him, nor whether a penalty was imposed or paid as a result. We hope that will be contained in the report we requested.
- He attempted to install an extra floor at Arnold St side of the building but this was reported to the inspectors
- He installed air conditioning at the back of the building when his approved plans clearly indicated natural ventilation
- He attempted to advertise his development as apartments for rental in violations of the conditions of approval by the MPT
- He has now bricked up an entrance onto a servitude without approval and, seemingly, in the process, damaged a resident’s fence.
Could you advise what steps have been taken by the building inspector’s to correct his behaviour as it seem he is content to continue flagrantly violating the law and his neighbour’s property rights and privacy? In particular, since he damaged council property with consequences for other property owners in Observatory when his contractors damaged the underground electricity cabling, we would like have a copy of the report of the subsequent investigation – as per the correspondence below.
Thanks
Leslie London
From: Johan X Gerber
Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2020 09:32
To: Patrick Chapple; Leslie London
Cc: Michael Schmidt; Jason Williams; Evan Trevor Solomons; Mark Turok
Subject: FW: Power Failure Observatory
Good morning Councillor
I must apologise for the delayed response, but working remotely creates certain challenges to obtain all the facts.
I want to point out that numerous inspections and Notices were issued by the Department during the course of the construction process and record of this is available on the electronic system of the City.
It must also be appreciated that any project of this scale in any neighbourhood will cause disruption and inconvenience to the neighbouring property owners and the public at large, but it is normally only of a temporary nature and after a while everything returns back to normal.
With regard to the allegation of major deviations from the approved building plan, no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued at all if there are any deviations from the approved plan on site. This matter will therefore only be finalised at the end and completion of the project.
My comments on the specific items raised by the complainant are as follows:
We have reported six major problems:
- He demolished a wall without any precautions raining rubble into neighbours’ back yards. Seemingly no action was taken against him.
Consultation was held between the Building Inspector and the Contractor. The City is not present at all times on a site to control each activity, but the Department of Labour is the custodian of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but the matter was in any case taken up with the Contractor.
Walls on the building plan indicate that only part of the wall to remain and Beta Fence to replace the existing wall.
It is therefore not true that no action was taken by the City.
- His contractors ripped up underground electricity cables which left large parts of Observatory without electricity for more than 24 hours while repairs were undertaken. We are not aware of any action taken against him, nor whether a penalty was imposed or paid as a result. We hope that will be contained in the report we requested.
Work on Municipal property are normally dealt with by the Department concerned, which in this instance was the Electrical Department. I copy Mr Schmidt in for further clarity on the matter.
- He attempted to install an extra floor at Arnold St side of the building but this was reported to the inspectors
Neighbours complained that a 4th Floor with additional rooms are being built, which was not correct, because it was not an extra floor, but the developer considered on adding extra rooms in between the void spaces on the approved floor. These rooms were however not constructed in the end.
- He installed air conditioning at the back of the building when his approved plans clearly indicated natural ventilation
Building Plan was approved with the basement ventilated and all toilets in the residential parts from 1st floor to 4th with extractor units. Air conditioning is not replacing any mechanical or natural ventilation systems, but is installed for the comfort of the occupants and ventilation will be addressed before final Occupation.
- He attempted to advertise his development as apartments for rental in violations of the conditions of approval by the MPT
LUMs Property inspectors visited the site, but did not serve any notices as yet, because there is no formal occupancy, and therefore no transgression, as per case number 70491486.
- He has now bricked up an entrance onto a servitude without approval and, seemingly, in the process, damaged a resident’s fence.
It is not clear where the registered servitude is you refer to, please be more specific, please note the extract below for clarity.
Also note that a neighbouring erf was served a legal notice for an outbuilding on part of the boundary wall that was not demolished.
Notice has been processed to court.
Kind Regards.
Johan Gerber
Section Head: Table Bay
Building Development Management
Department: Development Management
Directorate: Spatial Planning and Environment
From: Leslie London
Sent: Thursday, 11 June 2020 14:52
To: Patrick Chapple
Cc: Johan X Gerber; Rachel Zadok; Simone Le Fevre; Pieter Uys; Lisa Ransom; Matthew Kretzschmar;
Subject: FW: Power Failure Observatory
Paddy
Can we be clear about this matter?
We have had many developments of this scale and larger in Observatory – you know this very well
But this development, which is not a particularly large development, has been unusually disruptive and it is not just a matter of complaining residents.
The behaviour of this particular developer has been unusually perverse.
I appreciate Mr Gerber’s response but this has not been communicated to residents who raised these issues. We can’t say anything other than “Seemingly no action was taken against the developer ” if we are not told what action has been taken, despite requesting feedback. It is still unclear what action was taken.
There are some issues not addressed by Mr Gerber’s reply.
- If notices were issued, are these available to the public? Since the neighbours who lodged these complaints requested that we get feedback, and they were never informed of any actions taken by the City, we would like to be given access to copies of these notices.
- Can we have a copy of the report from Mr Schmidt regarding the incident of damage to the cabling?
- I won’t argue about the difference between adding “extra rooms in between the void spaces on the approved floor” and adding an extra floor, but it is clear that Mr Abader was in the process of attempting to circumvent the approved plans. I would think that circumventing an approved plan should concern the City and they should welcome the information from residents. It is likely that it was only the objections from neighbours prevented an illegal construction rather than having to redress it after the fact.
- Can Mr Gerber confirm that no air conditioning was approved for the back of the building? The residents can easily tell the difference between an air conditioning unit and an extractor fan on a toilet or a wind cowl.
- What is the case number 70491486 that Mr Gerber refers to. No-one informed me of the outcome of the complaint lodged with LUMS regarding and I wish to follow it up. Is the case number 70491486 reference to the complaint or the development?
- Mr Gerber’s office should be well-aware of the servitude that has been bricked up since this matter has been reported to [email protected] and forwarded to your office by Simone le Fevre more than a week ago. Our understanding was that the level 4 lockdown precluded any inspectors being on site, but this should now be possible under level 3. The servitude is at the back of 21 Arnold St, as reported, and as clear on the map below. I will resend to Mr Gerber the email from Ms Le Fevre bringing various infractions to the attention of the City.
Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter
Leslie
From: “Simone Le Fevre”
Subject: RE: Power Failure Observatory
Date: 12 June 2020 at 11:32:34 SAST
To: Leslie London; Patrick Chapple
Cc: Johan X Gerber; Rachel Zadok; Pieter Uys; Lisa Ransom; Matthew Kretzschmar; [email protected]>
Dear Johan
Attached here is my email sent to Evan Solomons that Leslie London refers to below.
The demolished wall is my immediate concern. Your note below about replacement with fencing refers.
The demolished wall is not on Himmy Abader’s property, it is on Matthew Kretschmar’s property (my neighbour to the NW, the wall closes my property from access to Himmy’s property). The wall should therefore be reinstated as it was before he demolished it. We do not want a fence put back we want the wall put back.
Himmy keeps saying he needs Evan’s permission to do this but I told him that he needs our permission as he should replace destroyed property. Please can you instruct Himmy Abader to replace this wall. He should also remove the bricked up doorway at Annelise Mentor’s property and re-instate the gate that was there as these are also both on her property.
All the other items below and in the attached email still refer.
To note: there was another major sewerage blockage at no. 25 Arnold this saturday evening again as a result of Himmy’s development.
Kind regards
Simone Le Fevre
COOKE LE FEVRE
ARCHITECTS AND URBAN DESIGNERS