A simmering planning battle in Lewes Street in the Briza residential area of Somerset West, has escalated into a high-stakes controversy involving municipal building enforcement, allegations of retaliatory complaints and sharp clashes over ongoing construction while municipal planning appeals remain active.

The dispute comes on the heels of a long-standing heritage battle over the 80-year-old property at 14 Lewes Street, formerly known as “Bahari Blue Waters”.

In May, the Western Cape Heritage Appeal Tribunal (HAT) unanimously dismissed a joint residents’ appeal, clearing the way for the total demolition of the historic manor house to make room for a 10-unit residential estate.

At the time, developer DB Spaces declared that “the integrity of the project has been confirmed” and that “the development is continuing as planned”.

But as demolition proceeded, the friction between the developer and surrounding residents has only intensified.

At the centre of the latest confrontation is a statutory 60-day notice issued by the City of Cape Town to residents Kevin and Berdina Cummins of 13 Lewes Street, demanding regularisation or removal of an existing courtyard roof and shade structures.

The controversy flared on Monday 21 September, when a City building inspector served a notice under Regulation A25(10) of the National Building Regulations. The notice followed a complaint lodged by Philip van Rooyen, developer of the adjacent 14 Lewes Street project.

The Cummins homeowners, who are registered interested and affected parties (I&APs) actively opposing the 14 Lewes Street development, dispute the findings. They point out that municipal archives include a 1999 approved alteration plan and 1994 aerial photography clearly showing the courtyard roof structure existed decades before they acquired the property in 2014.

Also, the initial notice was served solely to Berdina Cummins, despite the property being jointly owned. Residents argue that municipal enforcement mechanisms are being weaponised against development objectors, noting that similar notices have landed on other dissenting neighbours, including Dr Craig Voortman at 4 Lewes Street, who is concurrently contesting unauthorised building operations at 14 Lewes Street.

Responding directly to the allegations, the developer and DB Spaces firmly rejected claims of a retaliatory campaign or intimidation against neighbourhood objectors.

Addressing the complaints lodged against surrounding properties, DB Spaces explained that during a site inspection on Monday 31 August, they merely raised concerns regarding nearby structures: “DB Space’s position was that compliance with the applicable Development Management Scheme should be approached consistently and impartially.”

The developer strongly denied using municipal complaints as a weapon against objectors, adding that “DB Spaces categorically denies that the concerns raised with the City’s building inspector were motivated by revenge, intimidation or any intention to discourage neighbouring property owners…”

Regarding boundary wall construction during active planning appeals, DB Spaces noted that they proceeded with construction in the “bona fide belief that the approved building plans remained operative… [and] has sought legal advice regarding the status of the approvals”.

Regarding ongoing neighbourhood friction and alleged clashes, the developer added that the development has been the subject of sustained opposition. “DB Spaces disputes the suggestion that it or its construction personnel have engaged in a deliberate campaign of threats or intimidation.”

Addressing procedural and administrative concerns, Eddie Andrews, deputy mayor and Mayoral Committee member for Spatial Planning and Environment, provided the City’s official stance on the notice to Berdina Cummins, stating that “at the time of the investigation, no record of an approved building plan… could be located in the City’s available records… Compliance obligations relate to the property and not to any specific owner.”

Conceding an administrative oversight in serving only one co-owner, Andrews confirmed that this resulted from an administrative error and that a revised notice was issued to both registered owners.

Firmly denying claims of arbitrary or biased enforcement, Andrews added: “The City does not issue contravention notices solely based on verbal, informal or unverified allegations…[or] based on an individual’s participation in planning processes.”

On allegations of coordinated action against development objectors, Andrews concluded: “All complaints received are treated equally. The initiation of an investigation or the issuing of a notice does not imply coordination between separate cases.”

As the new compliance window ticks on and appeals against the Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) approval for 14 Lewes Street grind forward, residents remain deeply concerned over alleged height violations on site – including boundary walls built to 3,25 m instead of the approved 2,5 m, and retaining walls reaching 4,2 m where 2,1 m are permitted.

ALSO READ: An open letter to the ‘Blue Waters’ developer in Somerset West