Buffalo City Metro wants a court to order construction work at Beacon Bay Crossing to be halted and all buildings not approved on the site demolished.
The metro has asked the East London High Court to interdict and restrain Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Limited from building on a portion of Farm 817.
If successful, the order could cost the developer hundreds of millions of rands.
The city said it had not approved the building work in terms of the National Building Regulation and Building Standards Act 3 of 1997.
BCM has further asked the court to order Slip Knot Investments to demolish “all structures which have been erected on the property without written approval”.
According to an affidavit by the metro’s former acting municipal manager, Vincent Pillay, a section of the said act prohibits the erection of any building without prior written approval.
“ has to date not submitted any plans, specifications and particulars to as required by the act save for the clubhouse for which plans have been submitted but not approved,” Pillay’s affidavit reads.
The metro claims it had requested Slip Knot Investments to stop “unlawful” building works and to demolish the building already built as far back as September 2013.
On February 13 2015, Jean du Plessis, a director of Slip Knot Investments, was required to rectify the structural issues, an issue with which the company has allegedly not complied.
In June 2015, after a letter was sent to Slip Knot Investments, company officials requested a meeting with BCM representatives.
At the meeting it was allegedly agreed that Slip Knot Investments would make written representations by July 10 2015.
Slip Knot Investments’ attorney Martha Nel said in an affidavit that the company had launched a separate application to extend the time in which it had to respond to BCM’s case.
BCM instituted the court action on September 14 2015 and by September 29 Slip Knot had indicated its intention to oppose.
The company was then given 15 days to respond, which Nel said was not enough time.
“Slip Knot requires more time before it can answer the allegations made,” she said.
“The relief sought by BCM cannot be taken lightly as the consequence of any error in this regard would cause hundreds of million of rands damage to Slip Knot, not to mention the substantial job losses and the socio-economic consequences to the people of East London,” Nel said.
She added that BCM was unable to identify exactly which structures it wanted to demolish.
The matter was postponed this week to a later date, still to be set. — siyab@dispatch.co.za
BCM move to halt Crossing development
The metro has asked the East London High Court to interdict and restrain Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Limited from building on a portion of Farm 817.
If successful, the order could cost the developer hundreds of millions of rands.
The city said it had not approved the building work in terms of the National Building Regulation and Building Standards Act 3 of 1997.
BCM has further asked the court to order Slip Knot Investments to demolish “all structures which have been erected on the property without written approval”.
According to an affidavit by the metro’s former acting municipal manager, Vincent Pillay, a section of the said act prohibits the erection of any building without prior written approval.
“ has to date not submitted any plans, specifications and particulars to as required by the act save for the clubhouse for which plans have been submitted but not approved,” Pillay’s affidavit reads.
The metro claims it had requested Slip Knot Investments to stop “unlawful” building works and to demolish the building already built as far back as September 2013.
On February 13 2015, Jean du Plessis, a director of Slip Knot Investments, was required to rectify the structural issues, an issue with which the company has allegedly not complied.
In June 2015, after a letter was sent to Slip Knot Investments, company officials requested a meeting with BCM representatives.
At the meeting it was allegedly agreed that Slip Knot Investments would make written representations by July 10 2015.
Slip Knot Investments’ attorney Martha Nel said in an affidavit that the company had launched a separate application to extend the time in which it had to respond to BCM’s case.
BCM instituted the court action on September 14 2015 and by September 29 Slip Knot had indicated its intention to oppose.
The company was then given 15 days to respond, which Nel said was not enough time.
“Slip Knot requires more time before it can answer the allegations made,” she said.
“The relief sought by BCM cannot be taken lightly as the consequence of any error in this regard would cause hundreds of million of rands damage to Slip Knot, not to mention the substantial job losses and the socio-economic consequences to the people of East London,” Nel said.
She added that BCM was unable to identify exactly which structures it wanted to demolish.
The matter was postponed this week to a later date, still to be set. — siyab@dispatch.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos