Rezoning Application 138 Buckingham Avenue / 6 Grafton Road (Remaining portion of ERF 730 Craighall Park)

Corner of Buckingham Avenue & Grafton Road (138 Buckingham and 6 Grafton)
Deadline for Objections: 10 December 2025
Application Type: Rezoning from Residential 2 to Residential 3 (15 Units)

A rezoning application has been submitted for the Remainder of Erf 730, located on the southern corner of Buckingham Avenue and Grafton Road (designated as no.6 Grafton Road / 138 Buckingham Avenue) in Craighall Park. The applicant is seeking substantial increases in development rights, including higher density and taller building height.

What is being proposed

The application requests:

Rezoning from Residential 2 (maximum 3 dwellings) to Residential 3
Permission to construct 15 dwelling units
Increase in height from 2 storeys to 3 storeys
Coverage of 60% and Floor Area Ratio of 1.8
A future Site Development Plan to be submitted later

This represents a significant intensification compared to what is currently permitted.

CRA position

The CRA will be submitting a formal objection. The proposal introduces bulk, height and density that are not aligned with the immediate residential environment, and the application lacks essential planning information required for proper assessment. Residents are encouraged to submit their own objections so that their concerns are individually counted.

In line with the City’s planning framework, objections are most effective when they address the principles of Need, Desirability, and Public Interest:

Need: There is no demonstrated need for additional high-density development of this scale within Craighall Park, given the existing available zoned and underdeveloped sites in the area.
Desirability: The proposal introduces bulk and height inconsistent with the surrounding low-density character, negatively affecting streetscape, privacy, and sunlight access.
Public Interest: The application fails to protect neighbourhood character, infrastructure integrity, and traffic safety. Allowing this precedent could undermine orderly development across the suburb.

Key concerns

Scale and Bulk Out of Character

The proposal increases the site from 3 units to 15 units and from 2 to 3 storeys, creating a building scale well beyond the surrounding low-density homes. A FAR of 1.8 allows building bulk up to 1.8 times the size of the erf, which is excessive for a residential street.

The applicant’s claim that this provides a “buffer” to nearby business uses is misplaced – the intensity proposed is disproportionate to the context and inconsistent with gradual transition principles in the City’s policies.

No Site Development Plan (SDP)

No SDP was submitted, meaning there is no detail on:

Building placement
Shading/overlooking effects
Parking layout
Traffic access
Landscaping and tree retention
Waste storage and servicing
Stormwater management

A rezoning of this magnitude should not proceed without this information. The applicant has no valid reason for failing to submit an SDP or other supporting technical reports at this stage. Under Schedule 3 of the Municipal Planning By-law, rezoning applications are required to include information on the existing development, mature trees, surrounding land uses, and proposed building forms. None of this has been supplied.

The lack of such contextual information prevents the City from assessing whether the proposal promotes the “coordinated and harmonious development of the area,” as required by By-law Section 5(4).

Furthermore, the applicant’s intention to address built-form issues only after zoning approval is procedurally inappropriate—the suitability of the zoning itself cannot be evaluated without these details.

Density and Land Use

Residential 2 typically allows densities of 10–20 units per hectare, while Residential 3 allows 21–40 per hectare. Given the erf size of approximately 1,597 m², this would equate to a maximum of 3–6 units and not 15. The proposal therefore exceeds even the upper range contemplated under Residential 3 and is much more aligned to high density development.

Misinterpretation of Policy Frameworks

The applicant’s motivation relies heavily on broad SPLUMA and SDF language about “compact cities” and “urban transformation” but fails to recognise that such densification is intended for mobility corridors and high streets, not interior residential blocks. The site is not located along a designated transit or activity route, making the application inconsistent with the Spatial Development Framework’s guidelines for controlled, context-sensitive intensification.

Unsupported Need and Desirability Claims

The memorandum asserts that the need and desirability for 15 new units “have been proven” without presenting demographic data, demand studies, or locational justification. This is contrary to SPLUMA Section 42, which requires evidence-based motivation.

No Traffic Study

Buckingham Avenue is already heavily used. The application provides no assessment of the traffic and parking implications of adding 15 units and a 3-storey structure.

Engineering Services Not Assessed

The only engineering input provided is an electrical letter estimating a 70 kVA supply. There is no confirmation from Johannesburg Water or the JRA regarding sewer, stormwater, or road capacity. This is a serious omission and leaves critical infrastructure questions unanswered.

Neighbourhood Character and Precedent Risk

The property sits among low-density residential homes. Introducing a high-bulk, 3-storey building sets a precedent for dense urban-style development along Buckingham Avenue, which could encourage further intensification and change the character of the area over time. Cumulative approvals of this nature would undermine the intent of the municipal planning by-law to preserve the established residential fabric.

Lack of Supporting Information

The application is generic and provides insufficient detail to assess its local impact. It fails to meet the information standards required under Schedule 3 of the By-law and does not demonstrate compatibility with the existing development on adjoining properties. The absence of contextual plans, such as those typically required for subdivision applications under Schedule 7, further highlights the inadequacy of the submission.

The CRA acknowledges that future development on this site could contribute positively to the local area if undertaken in a manner that respects the scale, vegetation, and character of its surroundings. However, this would require a new, properly prepared submission supported by contextual analysis and a draft site development plan that ensures compatibility and harmonious integration with the neighbourhood.

How to object

If you wish to object, your submission must include all of the below:

Your full name
Your erf number and street address
A clear statement: “I object to this application”
Your reasons (3–6 bullet points is sufficient)

When drafting your objection, consider addressing it under the headings Need, Desirability, and Public Interest to ensure it aligns with municipal planning principles.

Email subject line: Objection to the Proposed Rezoning of Remainder of Erf 730 Craighall Park (LUM 5057/312622)

Send objections to:
• objectionsplanning@joburg.org.za
• townplanning@cra.org.za (CRA copy for record)
• beth@tplanning.co.za

Email subject line:
Objection – Remainder of Erf 730 Craighall Park