Rezoning, Removal of Restrictions and Consolidation: 7 & 9 Montrose Avenue — Erven 8 and 720 Craighall Park

Properties: Erven 8 and 720 Craighall Park
Street addresses: 7 and 9 Montrose Avenue
Deadline for objections: 19 August 2026
Current zoning: Residential 1 and Residential 3
Proposed zoning: Business 1

Council references:

20-01-6912 — Rezoning
20/13/2519/2026 — Removal of Restrictions
20/01/2520/2026 — Consolidation

Important: this is a new and expanded application

A new series of applications has been advertised concerning Erven 8 and 720 Craighall Park, situated at 7 and 9 Montrose Avenue. This is materially wider than the previous application to which CRA and more than 50 residents objected. The previous application concerned Erf 720 alone. The new applications add the adjacent Erf 8 and seek to:

rezone both properties to Business 1;
remove restrictive title conditions from both properties; and
consolidate the two erven for a combined commercial development.
Erf 8 measures approximately 1,983 m² and Erf 720 approximately 3,434 m². The addition of Erf 8 would therefore increase the land available to the proposed commercial development by approximately 57.7% relative to Erf 720 alone.

This is a substantial expansion, not simply a re-advertisement or administrative correction of the previous application.

What is being proposed

The applicant is seeking:

rezoning of Erf 8 from Residential 1 to Business 1;
rezoning of Erf 720 from Residential 3 to Business 1;
rights to permit restaurants and shops;
removal of restrictive title conditions from both properties; and
consolidation of Erven 8 and 720 into one larger commercial development site.

The consolidated site could potentially accommodate further commercial buildings, parking, access points, drive-through stacking, delivery areas, refuse facilities, signage and future commercial intensification.

CRA’s position

CRA has submitted a comprehensive formal objection to all three applications.
CRA is not opposed to lawful, appropriately located and properly motivated development. However, we strongly object to development proceeding as a fait accompli before the necessary land-use rights have been obtained.
Burger King, KFC and Vida e Caffè are currently operating from Erf 720, notwithstanding that the property remains zoned Residential 3 and the relevant title restrictions have not been removed.

The City has previously confirmed that:

contravention notices were issued;
the property was reinspected;
penalty rates were imposed;
initial fines were paid; and
legal enforcement proceedings remain underway.

The present applications therefore seek not merely to regularise the ongoing commercial use of Erf 720 retrospectively, but to extend the commercial scheme onto Erf 8 and consolidate both erven into a substantially larger development site. CRA considers this deeply concerning. More than 50 residents objected to the previous Erf 720 application. CRA is asking the City to retain and incorporate all those objections into the present application record. However, residents are strongly encouraged to submit an objection again so that their continued opposition is clearly recorded under the three new Council reference numbers.

Why CRA is objecting

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

Need

The applicant has not demonstrated why additional Business 1 restaurant and shop rights are required on these particular residential properties.
The existence of businesses already operating on Erf 720 does not prove planning need. Those operations commenced before the necessary rezoning and title amendments had been completed.
An unlawful or unauthorised use cannot be relied upon as evidence that the use is needed or appropriate.

Desirability

The proposal would convert and consolidate two residentially zoned properties into a substantially larger commercial site.
The addition of Erf 8 creates potential for further commercial expansion, additional parking, vehicle circulation, deliveries, drive-through activity, signage, lighting and operating impacts.
The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that this larger Business 1 development would be compatible with the surrounding residential area.

Public interest

The public interest requires:

compliance with the Land Use Scheme;
meaningful public participation;
proper assessment before development occurs;
protection of residential amenity;
safe and manageable traffic access;
proper infrastructure and stormwater planning; and
equal enforcement of planning law.

Allowing an existing contravention to become the basis for a larger consolidated commercial development would create a damaging precedent.

Key concerns

Ongoing contravention of the Residential 3 zoning

Erf 720 remains zoned Residential 3.
Restaurant, drive-through and associated commercial uses are not permitted by that zoning. The necessary Business 1 rights have not yet been granted and brought into operation.
The existing outlets are therefore not an established lawful commercial use. They are the subject of the City’s contravention and enforcement process.

Building approval is not land-use approval

The owner has relied on building-control documents, including a provisional authorisation under section 7(6) of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act. A section 7(6) authorisation may allow specified building work to commence provisionally. It does not:

rezone a property;
grant Business 1 rights;
authorise restaurants or shops;
remove title restrictions; or
override the City’s Land Use Scheme.

CRA repeatedly asked the owner and the three operators to provide proof of final land-use rights. No approved rezoning, consent use or removal of title restrictions was produced.

The proposal now includes Erf 8

Erf 8 was not included in the previous Erf 720 application. Its addition increases the proposed development site by approximately 57.7%. This materially changes the scale and potential impact of the proposal.

Demolition and clearing of Erf 8.

The structures on Erf 8 have been demolished and the property cleared, including the removal of trees.

CRA believes the City must investigate and disclose:

the demolition approval;
the age and possible heritage status of the former structures;
the timing of the demolition;
the removal of trees;
the current condition of the property; and
the intended treatment of the common boundary between the erven.

The applications should not be determined using outdated or incomplete descriptions of the site.

Consolidation of differently zoned properties

Erf 8 is zoned Residential 1 and Erf 720 Residential 3. The City’s Land Use Scheme does not permit consolidation of erven having different use zones, development controls or specific conditions unless they are appropriately rezoned. The consolidation is therefore entirely dependent upon the rezoning and removal applications being lawfully approved and becoming final. If the rezoning is refused, the consolidation must also fail.

Traffic and access

Restaurant and drive-through uses generate:

frequent vehicle movements;
meal-time peaks;
queues and stacking;
e-hailing vehicles;
food-delivery motorcycles;
delivery trucks;
refuse vehicles; and
pedestrian conflicts.

Adding Erf 8 creates capacity for further parking, circulation, access and commercial expansion. A proper traffic-impact assessment must consider both erven and the full Business 1 rights sought—not merely the present outlets.

Noise, odour, lighting and litter

Restaurant and drive-through uses can produce:

mechanical and extraction noise;
cooking odours;
vehicle idling;
ordering-system noise;
delivery motorcycles;
illuminated signage;
late-night activity;
refuse;
litter; and
pest-control concerns.
These impacts must be assessed at the neighbouring residential boundaries.

Infrastructure and stormwater

The application does not adequately demonstrate that sewer, water, electricity, roads, stormwater and waste services can accommodate the full consolidated commercial development. The clearing of Erf 8 may also have reduced established tree cover and the property’s ability to absorb stormwater.

Incomplete and inconsistent information

The application documents contain material inconsistencies. Erf 8 is described in places as developed with a dwelling and elsewhere as vacant. The consolidation is described as having no development impact, despite being expressly intended to facilitate a consolidated commercial development. The existing businesses are also described as approved or established despite the City’s contravention notices, penalty rates and continuing enforcement. The City should not determine the applications on incomplete, outdated or contradictory information.

More than 50 previous objections

More than 50 residents objected to the previous Erf 720 application. Those objections remain directly relevant to the present applications, including concerns about:

unlawful land use;
traffic;
noise;
litter;
crime and security;
residential character;
tree loss;
title restrictions;
precedent; and
procedural fairness.

CRA is asking the City to retain those objections. Nevertheless, previous objectors should submit again to ensure that their opposition is recorded against all three new reference numbers.

What CRA is asking the City to do

CRA is asking the City to:

refuse the rezoning;
refuse the consolidation;
refuse removal of the operative residential and land-use title restrictions;
retain all previous objections submitted against Erf 720;
continue enforcement against the current unlawful operations;
refer the matter to the Municipal Planning Tribunal for a public hearing and site inspection; and
require the applicant to withdraw the present applications and return to the drawing board with one accurate, complete and properly supported proposal.

How to object

Residents are strongly encouraged to submit their own objections.

Your objection should include:

your full name;
your street address and erf number, if known;
your email address and telephone number;
a clear statement that you object to the applications;
all three Council reference numbers; and
three to six concise reasons for your objection.

You do not need to live next door to the property. Any resident who believes the applications will affect the suburb, its roads, infrastructure, environment or residential character may object.

Email subject line: FORMAL OBJECTION – ERVEN 8 & 720 CRAIGHALL PARK, 7 & 9 MONTROSE AVENUE – REFS: 20-01-6912 / 20/13/2519/2026 / 20/01/2520/2026

Send your objection to all three addresses:

objectionsplanning@joburg.org.za
zaidc@mweb.co.za
townplanning@cra.org.za — CRA copy for our records

Deadline: 19 August 2026

Quick objection template

Dear Sir / Madam

I hereby object to the rezoning, removal of restrictive title conditions and consolidation applications concerning Erven 8 and 720 Craighall Park, situated at 7 and 9 Montrose Avenue, under the following Council references: 20-01-6912; 20/13/2519/2026; and 20/01/2520/2026.

I am a resident of [insert suburb and address] and believe the applications will adversely affect the surrounding community and the orderly development of Craighall Park.

My grounds of objection include (pick one or more):

Erf 720 remains zoned Residential 3 and the existing restaurant and commercial operations are not permitted under that zoning.
Building approvals and section 7(6) authorisation do not confer restaurant, retail or Business 1 land-use rights.
The addition of Erf 8 substantially enlarges the proposed commercial development.
The proposal has not adequately addressed traffic, access, noise, lighting, odour, litter, infrastructure, stormwater, vegetation and residential amenity.
The consolidation would facilitate further commercial expansion and undermine the residential character of the area.
The applicant should not benefit from establishing commercial operations before obtaining the necessary land-use rights.

I request that the City refuse all three applications and require the applicant to submit a new, complete and properly motivated proposal.

If applicable: I previously objected to the Erf 720 application under reference 20-01-5524 and request that my previous objection be retained and incorporated into the present application record.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm that my objection has been captured against all three Council reference numbers.

Kind regards
[Full name]
[Street address and erf number]
[Email address]
[Telephone number]

Residents’ participation matters

Every individual objection strengthens the formal record. The City must understand that the community’s concerns are not limited to a small number of immediate neighbours. They concern the integrity of the planning process, ongoing enforcement, road safety, residential amenity and the precedent that would be created across Craighall Park. Please submit your objection before the deadline and copy CRA at townplanning@cra.org.za so that we can maintain a community record of objections.