CRA
Become a member

Craigpark  Residents’ Association

doing better together for craigpark

Rezoning application: 377 Jan Smuts Ave (Erf 540 Craighall Park)

Town Planning

Rezoning application

377 Jan Smuts Avenue

(Erf 540 Craighall Park)

 

Deadline for objections: 5 November 2026
City reference: AS 20-01-7004
Current zoning: Business 1
Proposed zoning: Business 1, subject to conditions permitting additional uses

An application has been submitted to permit a motor vehicle repair shop, ancillary panelbeating and a builders yard at 377 Jan Smuts Avenue.

Although the property would remain zoned Business 1, the application seeks additional land-use rights for these activities. The motivation describes a combination of existing operations and proposed rights, and says the owner wishes to regularise the development and land uses.

This application concerns Erf 540 at 377 Jan Smuts Avenue. It is separate from the earlier application for Erf 542 at 375 Jan Smuts Avenue, although the documents indicate that the properties are intended to be consolidated eventually.

CRA’s position

CRA intends to object to the application in its present form.

We support businesses along Jan Smuts Avenue and appropriate commercial activity that serves the community. Our concern is that material questions remain unanswered about the activities proposed, the accuracy of the plans, parking and access, and protections for neighbouring properties.

CRA wrote to the applicant’s town planner on 15 October 2026, requesting a point-by-point response by 17:00 on 22 October. We followed up on 22 October.

No response to those questions was received by the requested deadline.

We sought clarification before settling our position and informing residents. With those questions still unanswered, CRA must proceed on the information available. We remain open to constructive engagement and will consider further information received.

What we asked the applicant

Our questions fall into five areas.

  1. How do the two applications fit together?

The application refers to the adjoining property and eventual consolidation. We asked for the status of the earlier application and a plan showing both properties, their proposed uses and any shared access, parking, loading or storage.

The timing of consolidation and the arrangements before it takes place also need to be explained. The two applications should be understandable both individually and in terms of how the sites would operate together.

  1. What is operating now, and what would change?

The documents refer to showrooms, offices and hardware, alongside motor repairs, panelbeating and builders-yard activities. The descriptions do not consistently distinguish existing activities from those proposed.

We asked the applicant to identify the current uses and their approvals, explain the additional rights requested, and substantiate the statement that no additional traffic is anticipated.

The existence of an activity does not, on its own, establish its approval status or demonstrate that additional rights would have no effect on the surrounding area.

  1. Can the parking and drawings be clarified?

The supplied plan records 47 parking bays required and 25 provided, but its calculation refers to showrooms, offices and hardware rather than clearly assessing the proposed combination of uses.

We asked for an explanation and a parking calculation for the activities actually proposed. These figures indicate a matter requiring clarification; they should not be treated as a verified final parking shortfall.

We also asked for the documents to be reconciled where they contain conflicting 375/377 Jan Smuts labels, existing and proposed floor areas, development controls and a “Hotel H1” classification. Residents and the City need a consistent set of plans describing the application being considered.

  1. What protections are proposed for neighbours and pedestrians?

We asked how the proposed uses fit this particular site and what enforceable conditions would control their scale, operating hours, noise, dust, fumes, storage, waste, fire safety and deliveries.

We also asked what improvements are proposed for pedestrian safety along the frontage.

These questions concern how the activities would be managed and how surrounding properties would be protected. They are not findings that every potential impact is currently occurring.

  1. How will corrected information be shared?

We requested a clear, corrected set of documents and confirmation of how these would be shared with the City and people who have commented, with an appropriate opportunity to respond.

Meaningful participation depends on residents being able to understand the rights sought and assess the information supporting them.

Of particular interest to adjoining residents

Residents of One Grosvenor and San Luca at 3 Grosvenor, which adjoin the site, may have a particular interest in the application.

We encourage residents, trustees and managing agents to review the proposal, particularly the implications of operating hours, noise, fumes, dust, deliveries and vehicle movements close to their homes.

First-hand observations can help explain a concern. Where relevant, residents should describe what they have observed, when it occurs and how it affects their property, distinguishing existing conditions from concerns about future activities.

How residents can participate

CRA intends to make its own submission. Residents should consider the application and decide whether they have a planning concern they wish to put to the City.

Include your full name, physical address, contact details, the application reference and your reasons in your own words. Focus on matters relevant to the proposal and explain any particular effect on your property or the surrounding area.

Suggested email subject:
OBJECTION – Erf 540 Craighall Park, 377 Jan Smuts Avenue – Ref. AS 20-01-7004

Submit by 5 November 2026 to all three email addresses below:

Sending your objection only to CRA does not lodge it with the City. Keep proof of submission and request acknowledgement.

If you objected to the application for 375 Jan Smuts Avenue, please make a separate submission if you wish to comment on 377 Jan Smuts Avenue.

Suggested objection

Please adapt this example. Don’t just copy and paste. Use only grounds you agree with and add any relevant observations of your own.

Dear Sir/Madam

I, [full name], residing at [full physical address], object to the rezoning application for Erf 540 Craighall Park, 377 Jan Smuts Avenue, under reference AS 20-01-7004, in its present form.

I am a [resident/property owner/tenant] in the area. My particular concern is [describe the effect on your property or the surrounding area].

The application requires clarification of the existing and proposed activities, their approval status, the parking and access arrangements, and the relationship with adjoining Erf 542. The drawings and development information should also be reconciled.

I am particularly concerned about [select and explain the issues relevant to you, such as operating hours, noise, fumes, dust, deliveries, storage or pedestrian safety]. Clear information and appropriate, enforceable conditions are needed to address these matters.

I request that the application not be approved in its present form without these concerns being properly addressed and affected residents having an opportunity to consider any materially revised information.

Please acknowledge receipt, register my submission against AS 20-01-7004, and notify me of any Municipal Planning Tribunal hearing and the eventual decision.

Kind regards

[Full name]
[Physical address]
[Email address and telephone number]

Application and supporting documents

The correspondence sets out the questions sent on 15 October and the reminder sent on 22 October. It is available for residents who would like to see precisely what CRA asked.