IPSA claims ‘tacit’ permit to occupy building

The City of Cape Town is taking the college to court after it allegedly failed to submit building plans for approval raising concerns about public safety

By LYSE COMINS*

The International Peace College South Africa (IPSA) claims that it has obtained a ‘tacit permission to use’ permit for sections of the building it is occupying in Rylands, where it recently completed extensive renovations, but allegedly without submitting building plans to the City of Cape Town.

The city has declined to confirm whether it granted this approval, save to say it is taking the matter to court.

This comes after the mayor and mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment, Eddie Andrews, told this reporter that no building plans had been submitted for approval for the renovation of the ground and first floors of the building and that no steps had been taken to rectify the allegedly unlawful development.

He said a notice to cease works on the premises was issued on April 18 and a notice to obtain written approval had also been issued to the property owners. The city’s legal service department was now handling the matter and a summons would be issued for the matter to be heard in court.

IPSA said in a press statement on Sunday night (June 8) that the college was a tenant on the property, although it had initiated and controlled the renovation project. It did not state the name of the property owner.

The Islamic institution had not indicated in previous communication through its attorneys that it was not the building owner, who, in terms of city by-laws, is ultimately responsible for renovations and building regulations compliance.

A deeds office search showed that Habibia Muslim Hostel & Orphanage is the registered owner of the property at 44 Johnston Road in Rylands. Habibia’s spokesperson, Sharfudien Parker, said this week that he would respond to questions regarding the development but still had not done so at the time of publication.

IPSA issued the press release in response to a news report last week that highlighted the concerns raised by whistleblower Salma Moosa, a former interior designer on the project. She wrote to the city in November 2024 to sound the alarm about the institution’s alleged failure to appoint an engineer and submit building plans, as well as its occupation of the building, despite the issuing of the stop work notice.

Moosa also filed a complaint with the city’s fire department and later with the office of the city ombud, which responded to her in May 2025 advising that the office was ‘registering and assessing the matter’.

She said she believed it was her moral duty to blow the whistle on the non-compliance with the building regulations as she was concerned about the safety of students.

But IPSA has alleged in its press release that Moosa only raised these concerns because her contract to work on the project was cancelled.

IPSA also blamed her for the lack of submission of plans, alleging she had misrepresented herself as an architect. But this reporter has seen a copy of her contract with the college, which describes her as an ‘interior designer’.

Moosa said IPSA’s allegation was ‘laughable’ because its vice-chairperson, Nazier Osman, had only attempted to terminate her services after she had raised concerns about his financial handling of the project in terms of his fiduciary duties.

She said she had raised questions with the board regarding Osman’s building supply business allegedly inflating the cost of building materials it sold to IPSA for the project. She said the same materials could be sourced at substantially cheaper prices from other retailers.

‘A product readily available in the market, such as readymix concrete, costing approximately R1 465 per cubic metre,excluding VAT, at the time, was charged to IPSA by [his family business] at a price R2 487, excluding VAT. More than 30 units of this item were procured and supplied to IPSA at this … inflated rate,’ Moosa said.

‘There are numerous other invoices which illustrate this same behaviour and as such this occurrence cannot be regarded as a once-off.’

When asked to respond to the allegation about inflated prices, Osman referred questions to his attorneys, who responded with a legal threat and described the allegations, as well as the claims about illegal building activity, as ‘devoid of truth’ and constituting ‘a deliberate campaign to damage IPSA’s standing as a respected educational institution’.

‘The insinuation that IPSA or Mr Nazier Osman engaged in unlawful construction practices is rejected. IPSA has consistently acted in good faith and is cooperating fully with the City of Cape Town’s inquiries. Any suggestion [of] … non-compliance or negligence is vehemently denied. We are currently reviewing the matter, and a comprehensive response will be furnished in due course,’ the lawyers wrote.

In its press release IPSA said it had since appointed a registered architect and a fire compliance specialist and that it had ‘commissioned a structural engineering report [dated July 4, 2024]’.

IPSA said it had also submitted an administrative penalty (AP) application to the City on July 2, 2024 in accordance with the municipal planning by-laws and that it had ‘prepared full building plans for submission, pending the outcome of the AP process’.

‘The AP application, available under municipal tracking, is a precondition for the building plan submission and final occupancy certification. The delay now rests entirely with the City of Cape Town, which has acknowledged an administrative backlog in processing such penalties,’ IPSA said.

It added that the ‘regulatory due process is under way’ according to its architect, who it quoted as saying: ‘IPSA is currently under a tacit ‘Permission to Use’ permit from the city for certain areas, and prohibited from occupying one area (new classrooms) until formal approval is granted. The AP was initiated on 2 July 2024. At that point, construction was still ongoing, and we were advised the previous ‘architect’ had misrepresented the application status.’

Andrews declined to comment when asked to respond to the accusation that the City was to blame and did not comment on whether tacit permission to use had been granted by any of its officials.

‘The city cannot comment any further as this matter is due to be dealt with in court,’ he said.