Here is the latest information regarding Saxon Square, which is the proposed development on erfs 733 and 734, Parkwood. This is on the South West corner of Oxford and Worcester roads.
As a reminder, a brief history of the Saxon Square development matter, follows:
- We received a copy of the application made by the developers to build a seven-storey apartment block with a suggested 134 dwelling units, on the corner of Oxford Road and Worcester Road, to which we duly submitted our objections.Our objections included:
- Inadequate parking space and the consequences of on-street parking.
- The undesirability of having a seven-storey building in a residential area and the noise that this would create for the residents from the contemplated roof entertainment area.
- The inadequacy of the current infrastructure to handle the current load, let alone the increase from buildings such as that contemplated.
- The Tribunal was convened and heard the matter on 29 November 2021 (during the hearing it was established that the Tribunal was not properly constituted in terms of the Act, but which the chairman conveniently elected to disregard).
- The decision of the Tribunal was handed down on 10 December 2021 which rejected the objections but gave no reasons for the decision or why the chairman elected to continue with the hearing when it was patently not properly constituted.
- We asked for reasons, paid the money required but have not yet to-date received a reply.
- Consequently, we elected to join the neighbours, who had also submitted their objections, to appeal that decision.
- The appeal was heard by the MMC in the City without any discussion and her decision was handed down on 8 June 2022 (it was out of time by that date) with a one sentence dismissal of our appeal. There were no reasons or discussion provided on the reason either for the decision of the Tribunal or the appeal.
- At this stage we realised that it was necessary to apply to the High Court to insist that the City respects our legal rights.SAPRA requested contributions from the community for this action and we were greatly encouraged by the substantial amounts we received. We were thus able to support and join the action by the neighbours.
- We briefed our attorneys to apply for a Review by the High Court of both decisions i.e. the Tribunal and the Appeal. As we were concerned that the City had given the go-ahead for the developers to commence with their project, we felt it was necessary to also apply for an urgent interdict to prevent any building pending the hearing of our review application.
- Papers were prepared and served on 12 October 2022.
- On 18 October 2022 our attorneys were approached by the attorneys advising the City that their clients wished to settle the urgent interdict. The City had agreed to:
- Rescind the appeal decision by the City and all decisions that followed.
- Obtain an undertaking by the developers not to proceed with any building on the two properties (other than for a single dwelling unit on each erf.).
- Refund of all taxed costs involved in the urgent interdict.
- This was agreed by all parties and presented to the Hight Court and made an order of that court.
- The result is that the matter is wound back to the time immediately prior to the appeal. It will now be up to the City to hear the appeal in a proper manner and provide good reasons as to why they have arrived at their decision. Whether we will continue with the Review application or not will, of course, depends upon the decision made on this new appeal.
This is, we believe, a big win for us. It has made the City take notice of its citizens’ rights and to act in accordance with the law and, hopefully, continue to respect those rights in the future. If not, we will be back in court.
For those of a legal bent, you can read the Court Order by clicking here.
Much has happened since the High Court ruling.
A further Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) took place on 9 November 2023. This resulted in the Provincial Gazette of 31 January 2024 confirming the removal of conditions and the rezoning of the two erven. An order restraining any work being carried out led to a meeting with the developers' lawyers to establish whether any compromise could be reached. Sadly, actions agreed to in the meeting did not result in any satisfactory compromise. It was subsequently decide by both the neighbours and SAPRA to take the matter further on the grounds that procedures followed for the hearings had not be been compliant with the law. Court papers are currently being exchanged.
January 2025: In view of the considerable building activity, it was decided to apply for an urgent interdict. This was heard on 11Feb25 but was turned down on the grounds that it was not urgent because, should our case be won, a demolition order can be applied for. In order to finalise this matter at the High Court a further approximately R60’000 was required. This has been paid so that the papers can be finalised and a court date applied for.
May 2025: An answering affidavit has been received (6 months late) from the 1st Respondent (CoJ) and this is now being responded to with an answering affidavit. This has delayed matters and has incurred extra costs.
August 2025: Responding to the affidavit from CoJ means that Heads of Argument for the urgent interdict needed to be updated for final submission. Despite several promises by our Advocate, the final Heads of Argument have still not been drawn up. It is now in debate whether a new advocate should be briefed. This would result in extra costs to cover the time need for him/her to become fully acquainted with the case.
A new advocate has been appointed. We have been told that draft Heads of Argument will be ready by Friday 5th September 2025. Once approved by us and our attorney, they can be lodged and a date for the hearing be obtained.