Row over Sea Point pavilion turns to finances

The battle for the Sea Point Pavilion continues – this time with lobby group Seafront for All (Seafa) accusing the developers of not having enough money to continue with their legal battle.

Seafa claims that On Track does not have any material assets, and it has asked the company to put up security to ensure that it can meet any adverse costs order granted against it.

Seafa made the claims about On Track’s financial status in papers filed earlier this month, in response to the company’s Supreme Court of Appeal application for leave to appeal a March High Court ruling against it.

The ruling effectively halted the proposed development of the pavilion, which includes the building of a multi-storey shopping centre and hotel.

The area would have to be rezoned to allow for this.

The development was opposed by Seafa. It is arguing that the development would mean people could not freely get access to the popular promenade area.

It approached the High Court for relief, arguing that the space should remain accessible to the public.

Seafa asked the High Court to review and set aside as flawed an environmental Record of Decision to allow the proposed development.

In March Judges Siraj Desai and Burton Fourie ruled in Seafa’s favour after criticising the manner in which the provincial government approved the development.

On Track later applied for leave to appeal the decision, but the judges refused the application in September.

Now the company has petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal.

It filed a 72-page affidavit in which On Track director and shareholder Serena Rosslind claimed the judges had made fundamental errors in fact and law. She alleged they had selected only evidence favourable to Seafa, and ignored or misconstrued issues presented on behalf of On Track.

But Seafa is opposing the application and filed an affidavit in which chairman Bennie Rabinowitz questioned whether On Track was able to meet an adverse costs order in the event the leave to appeal application was granted, and the appeal argued. He said On Track should be required to put up security for costs.

Rabinowitz also submitted that, to succeed in an appeal, On Track would have to show the judges erred in respect of all three grounds of review the court had considered.

However, he added that Seafa believed the company did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

The fantastically moody photograph of waves hitting the promenade, by Fiela!

original article at


2 responses to “Row over Sea Point pavilion turns to finances

  1. With respect to seafa’s points that the pavillion should remain public space as a resident i agree but i also think that the space sould be better utilized to create a community friendly environment. Don’t build up but develope the current facilities like turning the old milky lane into small coffee shop that serves meals, make a section open to about 12 market stalls allow other traders like the present ice cream and pancake traller. Just make sure the traders comply to respectable presentaion standards not the condition presented by the current coffee tent situated on the pavilion. And actually there are at least two onther locations along the sea point beach road that could facilitate other small general trader site and entertainment areas.

  2. Hi, I agree fully with you. However I believe that opportunities to trade should have been made available to previously disadvantaged individuals also based on their economic credentials etc. There is still no coffee shop that serves meals, but only a coffee dispensing kiosk of which the owner is an established business owner with more than five shops across Cape Town. The ice cream prices are ridiculously high, compared to places like Blaauberg and Muizenberg etc. due to monopoly. There are no traders of colour (pardon the pun).(so wrong!)
    Makes one wonder what the real reasons for opposing the development were by these business owners..(including the chairman of Friends of Seapoint Pavillion who owns a business directly opposite the pavilion??
    There is so much potential for traders on the same deck as the entrance to the swimming pools??? One big unutilised, unattractive space?

    Oh, one other thing. It seems as if the current traders have lifetime contracts as there is no application process and procedure for trading opportunities mentioned anywhere on their site or on facebook.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s