Skyscraper plan for Point slammed
A property developer has challenged plans by developers to build "massive" skyscrapers at the Durban Point Waterfront.
|||Durban - Property developer and amusement park boss Nic Steyn has challenged plans by “greedy” Malaysian developers to build skyscrapers up to 55 storeys high at the Durban Point Waterfront.
Steyn, the son of Durban Waterworld and Durban Funworld developer Nic Steyn sr, claims freshly revised development plans by the Kuala Lumpur-based UEM Sunrise group will wreck sea views and push down the value of several existing apartment and office blocks at the Point.
Steyn, who owns the fifth-floor penthouse in his Point Bay development in Signal Road, said he would never have bought or developed property at the Point had he known that the original plans by the Durban Point Development Company would be changed to allow a new “concrete valley” of “massive skyscrapers”.
“There are a lot of people that have invested a great deal of money into the Durban Point Waterfront – in some cases their life savings and in most cases the biggest investment of their life. This was all based on what was put to them by original plans drawn up by the development company,” he said in a written objection submitted to the developers as part of a mandatory process for revised environmental authorisation.
In his formal objection to Pravin Amar, the environmental assessment practitioner for the project, Steyn said he was objecting in his personal capacity and on behalf of Magnolia Ridge Properties 45, the owner and developer of the mixed-use Point Bay development.
The original Point development plans, dating back at least 12 years, originally included a small craft harbour which sparked bitter opposition from several watersport enthusiasts and other residents.
Eventually, the developers scrapped the harbour plan and recently proposed a new development vision that involves a significant increase in the permitted height and bulk of new property.
The developers have said that anticipated 14.7% profit margins from the original development were seen as “lower than the acceptable average profit for property development which is normally 30%-35%”.
Steyn argued that the original Point plans restricted the height of the tallest buildings to a maximum of 12 storeys, while other buildings would be tapered down towards the edges of the waterfront to permit guaranteed views from taller buildings further back.
Steyn, who has also served as a director of the Durban Point Waterfront Management Association, argued that the developers – a consortium involving the eThekwini Municipality, Renong and UEM Sunrise – had defaulted on original development promises.
The original plans and models showed all buildings between his property and the harbour would be single-storey, with foreshore buildings restricted to four storeys.
When the development company changed its plans to allow taller buildings a few years ago, Magnolia’s objections were ignored.
The most recent revisions to the plans – now providing for even higher buildings of up to 55 storeys – would relegate Point Bay and other property into a “concrete valley” with no prospect of the views and the outlook first promised by the development company.
“The addition of bulk and height to maximise financial gain is nothing short of greed that has serious implications for every owner of the existing properties within the Point Waterfront precinct,” he said, noting the revised plan was “a significant and material change”.
The Durban Point Development Company and UEM Sunrise group of Malaysia have rejected complaints that Point property owners are entitled to sea views.
Responding to an objection by Point penthouse owner Nic Steyn, the developers said: “Any town planning scheme, by law can be amended and heights in front of buildings may be increased if there is “need” and it is “desirable”.
“It was found the cost of sea reclamation – combined with the fact that the lease from Transnet for the reclaimed land was 20 years – forced a rethink in terms of viability … and it is desirable that the beach at the Point is public. Based on this, there is a need to remove the small craft harbour and replace whatever bulk is lost from the harbour by increasing that within the landward side.”
In response to Steyn’s objection that he and others had invested funds, the developers said: “The plan had to be revised for the benefit of the citizens of Durban and the country, not only local interests.”
They also dismissed allegations of greed and expected property devaluation as “speculative and argumentative”, saying: “Property values are depressed and the specialists believe any new proposal will inject interest and increase property values.”
The developers acknowledge that the buildings could obstruct views, but said: “The properties may see this as a protective barrier against extreme weather condition.”
Responding to a separate objection to “soulless Dubai-style high-rise buildings” the developers said the buildings were “consistent with the tropical setting”.
The Mercury