1 Blinkwater Road  |  2026-147918  ·  17 August 2026  |  CBCRA, together with affected property owners, obtained an agreed High Court order against HH Sando concerning the restoration of lateral support to neighbouring properties. The matter is scheduled to return to court on 21 October 2026, with the proposed remedial work subject to independent structural engineering oversight.

South African Property Owners' Association v City of Cape Town  | 103018/2025 and 139023/2025 · 30 April 2026  |  This is particularly important for the CBCRA and community, though CBCRA was not itself an applicant. The proceedings were brought by SAPOA and AfriForum. The Cape Town Collective Ratepayers' Association (CTCRA) participated as amicus curiae. CBCRA's involvement was through its association with and support of CTCRA. The Court declared the property-value-based city-wide cleaning, water and sewerage charges unlawful and invalid, setting them aside with effect from 30 June 2026.

Beachfront Hotel Development Opposition  |  8640/2023; SCA 90/2025 · May 2026  |  CBCRA, together with an affected resident, challenged the City's approval of a proposed 101-room hotel on the Camps Bay beachfront, raising concerns about the development's height, bulk, parking provision and compliance with applicable planning regulations. Following the Western Cape High Court's dismissal of the application in August 2024, CBCRA was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard in May 2026, and judgment is currently awaited. This remains an important legal challenge in CBCRA's ongoing efforts to protect the character and integrity of the Camps Bay beachfront and ensure compliance with planning legislation.

22 Sedgemoor Rd Development Dispute  |  19069/2021 · 2021–2022  |  BCRA, together with affected neighbouring property owners, successfully obtained a Western Cape High Court interdict in December 2021 halting construction of a four-apartment development, following challenges to the City's approval of building plans allegedly exceeding permissible height restrictions and concerns about the extension of lapsed land-use rights without proper public participation. Despite the Court's intervention, the dispute has continued, with both the developer and the City subsequently seeking to have the interdict reconsidered or set aside. The case highlights the considerable legal and financial burden placed on residents and ratepayer organisations when challenging disputed municipal planning decisions. The underlying litigation remains unresolved in the latest judgment located, dated January 2026.

Marine Heights – Upper Tree Road cell masts  |  2021–2022  |  Following years of objections to telecommunications equipment installed at Marine Heights, CBCRA and an affected neighbour pursued High Court proceedings seeking its removal. Although the Court deferred a final ruling pending further municipal consideration, the City subsequently refused planning permission and, in October 2022, issued a compliance order requiring the equipment to be removed by 30 November 2022. The matter highlights CBCRA's persistent efforts to secure enforcement of municipal planning regulations after years of unsuccessful representations to the City.

23 Francolin Road  |  2021  |  CBCRA played an instrumental role in legal proceedings challenging the City's approval of a four-storey residential development. Following the application to set aside the planning permission, the developer agreed to settle the dispute by demolishing the entire top floor. This represented a significant outcome for residents and demonstrated the effectiveness of challenging disputed municipal planning approvals through legal intervention.

5 The Meadway  |  11256/2019  ·  2020 |  CBCRA was the first applicant in litigation challenging the approval of original and amended building plans for a Camps Bay dwelling. The Court set aside the 2015, 2017 and 2018 building-plan approvals, with a limited exception relating to excavation. It also found specified deviations from approved plans.

96 Camps Bay Drive  |  2017–2018  |  CBCRA successfully challenged planning approvals and the removal of title deed restrictions. In June 2018, the High Court set aside the disputed decisions and ordered the City to pay CBCRA's costs.

21 The Meadway  |  2973/2010 and 3430/2010 · [2010] ZAWCHC 198 and 215  |  CBCRA, together with neighbouring owners, challenged the City's approval of building plans for a double dwelling alleged to contravene zoning and title deed conditions. The High Court initially interdicted further construction. In November 2010, the Court set aside the building-plan approval, ordered the property owners to pay the applicants' legal costs and expressly criticised shortcomings in the City's planning administration and management of information.

2 Woodhead Close  –  Augostides  |  CASE NO. 2005/2009  |  CBCRA, together with affected neighbouring property owners, successfully obtained a Western Cape High Court interdict halting construction of a five-level residential development over concerns about building height, zoning compliance and the City's approval procedures. The Court found sufficient grounds to prevent further construction pending a judicial review of the approved building plans, demonstrating the Association's longstanding role in challenging potentially unlawful development and protecting neighbouring property rights.

Harrison – 17 Geneva Drive  |  9470/2006; 15113/2007; SCA 560/08; Constitutional Court CCT 18/10 and CCT 76/12  · 2005–2012  |  CBCRA, together with a neighbouring property owner, pursued a lengthy legal challenge against the City's approval of building plans for a three-storey development, raising concerns about zoning compliance, building setbacks, title deed restrictions and neighbouring property rights. Although an initial municipal appeal succeeded, subsequent challenges in the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court were unsuccessful. The case illustrates both the complexities and considerable financial risks faced by ratepayer associations seeking to challenge municipal planning decisions.

First Crescent – Landmark Planning Case BC Sub Eleven – Erf 2319, Camps Bay    |   6455/98 and 6594/98 · (1998–2001)   |  The Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (CBRRA), together with affected property owners, successfully challenged the removal of restrictive title deed conditions intended to permit a block of flats in an established single-residential neighbourhood. The High Court judgment became an important precedent concerning the protection of community interests, property rights and the lawful removal of title deed restrictions. This landmark case continues to be cited in South African planning and property law.