A cornerstone of the IDP is the so-called 5 pillars, being the opportunity city, the caring city, the safe city, the inclusive city and the well run city. Ecological sanctity and environmental concerns are not explicitly listed as a pillar and are merely inferred. For instance, water scarcity and water purity issues, a particularly severe challenge in the Western Cape in the long term is not sufficiently stressed. Environmental concerns and resource constraints are mentioned, but in the context of economic growth only.

The term sustainability and sustainable development require the counterbalancing of social, economic and environmental matters as THREE interlinked and EQUALLY important considerations. The shortcoming of the IDP in a nutshell is that the 3 pillars of sustainability are not equally balanced: environmental concerns are ‘added on’ after socio economic issues relegating it to a position of lesser importance. This is where ‘…the centre cannot hold…things fall apart’ to quote Chinua Achebe citing Yeats in the Second Coming.

This is symbolic of a very anthropocentric (human centred) approach that places man at the centre of the universe with the earth and its riches at the behest of man. More so, our mindset is that man is an omnipotent and omniscient being that is capable of overcoming environmental challenges through technological innovation. This mindset fails to adequately take into account that we as humans are RELIANT on the earth and its riches.

What is needed is that more specific emphasis is given to environmental issues, not as an after thought or something that is needed as a precondition for economic growth. What is needed is to engender a culture and respect for our natural resources as our very livelihoods depend on its health.

The counter argument to this would be that environmentalism is a luxury that we as a developing nation cannot afford: people must first have jobs and houses and environmental concerns are a luxury only the elite few or the insane tree hugger brigade can afford. This sentiment is echoed by authors such Ivo Vegter in ‘Extreme Environment’ and Ann Bernstein in ‘the case for business in developing countries’.  

What is needed is to persuasively dismiss this fallacious reasoning: being concerned about Princess Vlei or Uitkamp or Winelands is not about being labelled a ‘greenie’ or a tree hugger or elitist and not caring about jobless homeless hungry disadvantaged people: the reality is that THEIR very long term needs would be better served if environmental integrity is placed at the centre of our policy making.

What we need to get across is that long term economic job creation and prosperity would be better served if we recognised the natural resources of the Western Cape as our PREMIER and foremost asset and that development should be focussed on how to maximise the income generating potential hereof without compromising it. The focus should therefor shift towards exploring eco tourism, medicinal biodiversity initiatives, ecologically based psychotherapy retreats. These initiatives could yield foreign currency whilst simultaneously result in job creation and up-skilling of our labour force. 

Simultaneously we may wish to ‘bring to book’ and reflect the value of our natural resources as an asset in our provincial or local government balance sheet. Activities that detract from the integrity of our natural resources should be shown then as ‘reducing’ the value of this asset… indicating to us the fact that our activities are causing us to be in ‘ecological overdraft’.  Fundamental to the flaw in our current thinking is that natural resources and the way we deplete them are not accounted for in our current financial thinking model, due to the fact that we are not ‘internalising’ the true cost of consumption in our society.

The current pro development stance of the Province and City, whilst on the face of it necessary given poverty eradication challenges, is not capable of generating long term job and economic growth as once every square inch is developed then the very reason why people were attracted to the western cape would have been destroyed. And then we would not have the value of our natural resources to fall back upon. As such, a harder line on developments impacting the urban edge, sensitive eco systems, wetlands, bio diversity losses etc must be taken. This applies to Princess Vlei, Uitkamp, water intensive luxury golf estates and the like. This may necessitate short term sacrifices for long term sustainability: both ecologically and economically speaking.

The above reasoning that more emphasis should be placed on environmental integrity as a precondition and first building block in long term poverty alleviation could in its extreme be used to challenge the constitutional validity of the IDP on the basis that it inadequately considers the environmental right in section 24, Government is the custodian of various of our natural resources in terms of environmental legislation and are failing in their custodianship role.  Whilst we 100% acknowledge the importance of socio economic upliftment this bias in favour of economic growth is not sustainable in the looooonnnng term, i.e. 20 year time frame plus and as such is not in the interests of the people of the Western Cape: we need to be more longer term and more forward thinking.

The IDP itself acknowledges development pressure on ecological systems: this is perhaps too much a case of talk is cheap. We need actual and enforceable development guidelines that would translate this into action, for instance development outside of the urban edge is not even up for discussion: there are no ifs and buts…. it should be incapable of ministerial override…or departures and consents being granted.

The core problem that emanates from the IDP is that politicians and businesses suffer from short termism (to borrow a phrase from Jorgen Randers): politicians are elected for 5 year terms and hence they make 5 year decisions. Likewise corporations cannot survive on promises of what will happen in the next 40 years, shareholders want to see a return or result this year….or at most next year. Hence our society (and not the DA only) is not geared to making ecologically sound long term decisions.

Kiki Bond-Smith

On behalf of Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance

Kiki Bond-Smith is an Executive Committee member on the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance

Good Day Premier

As per my letter attached written on the 26^th April 2013 and as per the ongoing abomination that this community has to face this is totally unacceptable yet your administration continues to ignore the plight of this community. Trucks thunder late into the evening to drop off refuse.

Your cllr. designated to this area is ABSOLUTELY POWERLESS to at least stop evening as well as weekend drop-off’s….

There are no words to explain that that this is allowed to continue.

Madam Premier, you are the Chief in Charge. If you cannot intervene then I am afraid the next stop is National Government to try and help.

Regards

George Sieraha

Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance (GCTCA)

Portfolio – Heritage & Environment

 

From: Tygerdaldump [mailto:tygerdaldump@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 8:04 PM
To:
Subject: Tygerdal Dumpsite: Truck Activities

Dumpsite Tygerdal posted the following Photo Today, 8 May 2013

Dumpsite Tygerdal posted photo today @ 7:20 am

This truck stood parked idling in front of the site from before 7am.

Tygerdal CapeTown posted a photo to its timeline Sunday at 9:43pm

·         Past 9 tonight a big truck entered the dump and with quite a bit of commotion dumped its load at the back where the chipper is… it left again at 21:17… Plea…se tell me how is this ACCEPTABLE? This is NOT an industrial area where this type of thing is ok… this is a residential area with families trying to put kids to bed amongst the noise and commotion that this truck just caused! I think its time to realise that NOBODY is interested in doing the right thing here… we need to get the law involved!

Sunday, 5 May 2013

On 26/04/2013 09:01 PM, George Sieraha wrote:

Good Day Premier and Mayor

The Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance (GCTCA) has been involved in this situation for quite some time,

We have a community which has been basically ignored despite the “processes” which have been put in place. Huge trucks still pervade this community 7 days a week. Vagrants still do as they please. It looks very much like this administration is dragging its feet to solve this problem which is totally unacceptable.

The mail below describes the community feelings and is but a miniscule tip of the ice-berg that residents have been through.

This community has suffered enough and nothing less will suffice than a direct intervention from the both the Premier and the Mayor. Please confirm when you can meet with this community to really listen what has been plaguing them for years. Your soonest reply will be appreciated.

Do not send a Mayco member or a director, your direct presence is required. Thanks.

Regards

George Sieraha

Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance (GCTCA)

Portfolio – Heritage & Environment

  ——————–

From: Tygerdaldump [mailto:tygerdaldump@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:56 PM
To: ‘Colleen McCreadie’
Cc:
Subject: RE: Update: Tygerdal Dumpsite Activities since 13 April 2013

Dear Ms McCreadie

Please do not insult and treat us as objects by calling us “Interested and Affected Parties”.  We are residents (REAL PEOPLE) living in a residential area where a regional waste activity that should have been located in an industrial area is conducted on a public open space.  As such you should rather use the term “Abused” residents.

Furthermore, what is the use to consult with us if nothing is going to come of it?

Since 2009 we have been through petitions, many meetings, vague promises of which we see nothing happen, in fact the waste activities just increased.  In your draft assessment you refer to an e-mail of Councillor Sims that says the operation hours will be between 8 am and 4 pm.  Please visit our Facebook site to see for yourself the evidence of the photos of these trucks moving in and out of the residential area from as early as 6:30 am until 7 pm.  The site hours are also not according to these mentioned times.  Weekends we are not even spared this scourge.  We have heard many promises but we yet need to see results!

The last insult to us residents was where the City wanted to rezone the property (September 2012) for Local Authority uses so that they can do whatever they want to do under such a zone.  82 people objected to this.  To this day we do not know what has become of this rezoning and our objections.  Why is the City hiding this from us or are certain officials and politicians involved too embarrassed to take it to the Committees and Council and face the fact that this use should never have been placed here?  Or do they want to deal with it behind the scenes to try and intimidate and deceive us to believe that the Dump can stay here “for the good of the greater community” as they always say?   Also, when questions are asked, it is said that it is only a “few” residents that are complaining.  Our petition of more than 200 people to close the dump submitted to the City in 2010 as well as our 82 objections last year counter this argument.  But we are tired of all these nonsense.  In the meantime we are at the suffering end of it all.

I would like to ask you as an Environmentalist the following questions?

• The City is paying you to do this study for them, so they told you what the impacts are and what the outcomes should be?
• If you were a resident here, what would you have done?  If you are a true environmentalist, and I would like to believe that, then you would have stood up and fight with us to get this atrocity out of our area?

We would urge you again to study the contents on the Facebook site, as the history with all the trimmings  is contained there.  I will also send you the petition and 82 objections, seeing that the City officials and politicians involved did not supply you with this information.

We are not going to participate in any further consultations as our mistrust and scepticism of the motives (mostly ulterior!) of the City direct us to believe that this is only another window dressing attempt to keep the dump here and as such is not in our best interest.  We believe all our actions, petitions and objections from the past should be sufficient indication of our determination to close the dump to live a normal life again.

Tygerdal Residents

 ———————-

 

From: Colleen McCreadie
Sent: 25 April 2013 10:27 AM
To: Tygerdaldump
Subject: RE: Update: Tygerdal Dumpsite Activities since 13 April 2013

Dear Interested and Affected Party

Please can you advise your name, as well as the formal name of your action group? This is for the purposes of our I&AP database for the project going forward.

Thank you

Kind regards

 

 ———————-

 

From: Tygerdaldump [mailto:tygerdaldump@gmail.com]
Sent: 24 April 2013 08:44 PM

Subject: Update: Tygerdal Dumpsite Activities since 13 April 2013

Please check out our daily misery in the industrial area of Tygerdal!  We could just be living in Epping next to SA Metal!

https://www.facebook.com/dumpsite.tygerdal?ref=tn_tnmn

 ———————-

From: Sakkie Pretorius
Sent: 14 April 2013 07:02 PM
To: Ernest Sonnenberg; Rustim Keraan
Cc: tygerdaldump@gmail.com
Subject: RE: 13 April 2013: Tygerdal Dumpsite Activities

Dear Messrs Sonnenberg and Keraan

I am at least receiving once a week complaints about truck movement and vagrants squatting in and on the premises (Tygerdal Drop-off site) during the week and weekends.

The residents are up in arms about the situation. I will be very pleased if we could visit the area during the coming week.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Regards

Sakkie Pretorius

Councillor

  ———————-

From: Tygerdaldump [mailto:tygerdaldump@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 April 2013 11:52 AM
To: Sakkie Pretorius; Ernest Sonnenberg
Subject: 13 April 2013: Tygerdal Dumpsite Activities

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1387485234725849.1073741834.100003931564734&type=1&l=249e03693b

 ———————-

From: Sakkie Pretorius [mailto:Sakkie.Pretorius@capetown.gov.za]
Sent: 07 April 2013 10:03 AM
To: Ernest Sonnenberg
Cc: Trevor Anthony Carroll; tygerdaldump@gmail.com
Subject: FW: 6 April 2013: Tygerdal Dumpsite Activities

Dear Colleague

Please instruct your Directorate to prevent the contractor to load and off-load chipped garden material on Saturdays and Sundays. An undertaking in this regard was given to the residents. See the attached e-mail which was sent to us by some residents.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Regards

Sakkie Pretorius

Councillor

  ———————-

From: Tygerdaldump [mailto:tygerdaldump@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 April 2013 09:55 AM
To: Ernest Sonnenberg; Sakkie Pretorius;
Subject: 6 April 2013: Tygerdal Dumpsite Activities

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1384124985061874.1073741832.100003931564734&type=1&l=538a6db930

 

 

 

Cape Times – Editorial
18th April 2013

THE DA’S election campaign got off to a bumpy start this week with a row over the “Mandela” poster and a curious call to Western Cape voters to treat next year’s poll as a referendum for the proposed Winelands toll road.

Launching the toll road campaign, Transport and Public Works MEC Robin Carlisle proclaimed that “Every vote for the ANC in the April 2014 election will be a vote for the toll road.

“Every vote against the ANC, regardless of which party, will be a vote against the toll road,” he said. “I call on the voters of the Western Cape to show the ANC the real teeth of a functioning democracy.”

It may be that the MEC – and can this be the same Robin Carlisle who favours the construction of a huge toll plaza and office block on Chapman’s Peak Drive? – has bitten off more than he can chew.

Accused by Carlisle of a “deafening silence” on the toll road issue, the ANC’s provincial chairman Marius Fransman was quick to say that his party was not, in fact, in favour of the toll.

In this Fransman is following the lead of ANC and SACP leader Jeremy Cronin, who as deputy minister of transport took a very strong stand against the Winelands toll plan – a fact Carlisle and others in the DA may have forgotten.

As for the ANC’s trade union ally, Cosatu has fought a long and determined battle against toll roads in Gauteng and apparently intends to do much the same here.

So it looks as if the DA’s attempt to develop a political campaign around the toll road, complete with street-by-street activism to mobilise residents from Khayelitsha and Mitchells Plain to Somerset West and De Doorns, may backfire, and a vote for the ANC in April 2014 will just be a vote for the ANC, and a vote for the DA will just be a vote for the DA.

The Winelands toll road is undoubtedly a bad idea. It is not the best way to finance road maintenance and places an unnecessary extra burden on the poor. So far the process has been marked by an alarming lack of transparency on the part of the SA National Roads Agency, Sanral.

But it should not be treated as election fodder for the voting cattle.

Each year, the Goldman Environmental Foundation selects grassroots activists from around the world to honour them for their work. With an individual cash prize of $150 000 (close on R1.5m), it is the largest award for grassroots environmental activism in the world.

Deal received the Prize at an awards ceremony in San Francisco on Monday 15 April, 2013. He is one of six recipients of the award for 2013. Other winners were honoured for their work in marshland restoration, solid waste management, marble mining, and coal plant emissions.

Deal is the second South African to be recognized with the Goldman Prize. Bobby Peek was awarded the Prize in 1998 for his fight against industrial pollution in the South Durban region.

“This award coincided with the end of an especially difficult year in the hard fought campaign against fracking,” said Deal.

“Even though I have had to keep the news to myself since November, it has been an enormous inspiration. I have done nothing in this campaign for my personal benefit, however, the recognition from people on the other side of the world has been a great encouragement. The value of the prize has already manifested itself in our organisation, Treasure Karoo Action Group (TKAG), because I have been able to pay salaries to staff that have worked for two years without, and commit to other expenses that have assisted us in reaching out to rural communities.”

Deal and the TKAG have received a number of awards in recent months for their campaigning, including the WESSA Special Environmental Award in 2011, winning the NPO category for 2012 at the Mail & Guardian Greening the Future Awards, the Habitat Council’s Annual Environmental Award for 2012, and being selected as a finalist for Enviropaedia’s Eco Warrior Award.

“We fought for – and secured – a moratorium on fracking in South Africa but this was lifted in September 2012. Licences can now be issued at any time, but we will be ready to appeal the issuing of any licences,” said Deal.

The moratorium was lifted following the recommendations of a government appointed task team, whose report suggested that exploration proceed without allowing for horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing, while laws are amended and a monitoring committee is established.

“Due to the fatal flaws in the applicants’ environmental management plans and other considerations, TKAG will be opposing any licences that may be granted,” said Deal.

Fracking is a technique used to extract natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth. Environmental groups and many scientists believe this technique degrades the land, pollutes ground water and fouls the air.

The Durbanville Community Forum has vowed to fight the state’s decision to approve development on “historic” farmland outside the urban edge.

The Durbanville Community Forum (DCF) is raising money to mount a court challenge to a proposed mixed development on a portion of the Uitkamp Farm, off Vissershok Road on the outskirts of Durbanville.

The DCF was one of the organisations that appealed a decision by the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) on November 24 2011 to grant an Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the highly contested Uitkamp development.

An EA is written approval for a development. In this case, it was granted subject to several conditions, including a number of infrastructural upgrades such as road widening, the construction of pedestrian walkways and traffic-calming measures.

Last week, the forum, a registerd public benefit organisation, said it would apply to the High Court for a judicial review of the DEADP’s decision to uphold the EA. But they need money to mount the legal challenge and have called for donations.

DCF spokesman Danny St Dare said they planned to raise funds and build their case within three months.

The DCF’s appeal against the EA was dismissed on Thursday February 28. Mr St Dare called it “one of the sloppiest decisions” the DCF had seen from the department to date.

The development by the AFM Louw Family Trust is earmarked for a 127-hectare portion of the Uitkamp” Farm (portion 18, Uitkamp No. 189) on the outskirts of Durbanville.

Located to the north of Aurora on Vissershok Road, the site is zoned vacant land and falls just outside of the urban edge. It is being used for conference facilities and accommodation.

The more elevated portion of the farm is run as a game reserve, Clara Anna Fontein. It is not included in the development proposal.

The AFM Louw Family Trust wants to build a “lifestyle estate” of about 470 residential units and a further 176 retirement village units.

The nearby Chester House private school, which has been unable to secure extra space for its campus within the urban edge, will benefit from the development.

According to the proposal, more than eight hectares have been set aside to build a senior campus on the lower end of the northern portion of the proposed development. The introduction of sportsfields on the Vissershok Road side will form a green edge to the development.

But, Mr St Dare said, the DCF could not allow the environment and laws to be threatened by DEADP decision, which he claimed had set a “dangerous” precedent for future of environmental protection in the Western Cape.

He said the land was historically and environmentally important.

Mr St Dare said several factors made the DCF decide to go to court, including a “very important” wetland delineation study, which the DCF believes was omitted from both the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report and public participation processes.

“At the time the EA was granted, the officials in the department did not seem to be aware of this, although it was identified as a requirement of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. When appellants brought this to the attention of the minister, he simply brushed it aside. The result is parts of the development are either on delineated wetland or encroach on it. This is unlawful and cannot go unchallenged,” he told Tygertalk.

The department had confirmed to the DCF that its decision was based on information from an alternative flood line report instead of the wetland delineation report, but Mr St Dare claimed the reports dealt with different issues.

He said the DCF would appeal to the court for “vigorous examination of die reports and the specialists concerned”.

The DCF also argues that the development alternative approved by the DEADP would see “substantial development” on soil that could be used for farming.

Mr St Dare said the department’s views seemed “to be at odds with each other”, because it maintained that no development would take place on large areas containing valuable soil, but it had apparently approved the development alternative that showed that 50% of the development would happen on this portion of land.

Mr St Dare said the property was outside the urban edge. He said the natural resources protected by the City’s Spatial Planning and Development Framework had been ignored and were threatened’ on the Uitkamp Farm.

Alwyn Laubscher, project manager for the Uitkamp development project, said they were pleased with the outcome of the appeal process in late February, and DEADP’s decision to uphold the EA.

He did not want to comment on the DCF’s plans to take the matter to court, apart from ‘saying the court was responsible for dealing with the merits of the case the DCF wished to lodge.

Mr Laubscher said there was a “silent majority” of residents in Durbanville who agreed with the proposed development.

He said for residents to deny the need for development and growth in Durbanville was “silly”.

“Urbanisation is taking place, and we haven’t got a choice,” he told Tygertalk.

He said the developer had followed all the correct channels to finalise a process that has run since 2001.

“We want to do the right thing in the right way. There are so many positive elements to this development, I don’t know why people are complaining,” he said.

Mr Laubscher said the next step was to finalise the application to have the land zoned for development. He believed building could start early next year.

For more information about the DCF’s court application, contact George Sieraha on 082 490 7628 or email gsieraha@gmail.com

A controversial eco-estate, at the foot of the Hottentot’s Holland Mountains near Sir Lowry’s Pass Village, has received environmental approval from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP), despite numerous objections received during the public participation process.

The approval limits the development to 148, rather than the originally planned 400 dwellings, at the luxury Casa Maris Eco Estate. The development, which Bolander first reported on in 2009 (“Eco forum sees red over green estate”, April 29), is the brainchild of developer Henk Maris.

Although province has granted environmental approval, the City of Cape Town has the final say over the land use issue. Currently, the land is zoned agricultural, and in order for the project to go ahead, it will need to be rezoned.

“Although provincial government has given environmental approval for the project, the City of Cape Town must receive and review that approval.

“The application for rezoning will then be processed in terms of the City’s zoning scheme,” City of Cape Town’s Kylie Hatton told Bolander  last Friday.

Civic association The Greater Cape Town Alliance (GCTA), is opposed to the project, as it is located entirely outside of the urban edge, and approval of the project will set an unacceptable precedent according to GCTA spokesperson and Helderberg resident, Gavin Smith.

“We were originally concerned about the height up the mountainside that development was originally proposed, but the approval notes that it is limited to the area largely below the railway line which does to some extent negate that concern, although development will still take place above 300 metres,” he told Bolander last Friday.

An important component of the project, originally reported in Bolander’s 2009 article, is the social development aspect, which will see the Sir Lowry’s Pass Village community benefiting. According to Henk Maris, 50% of the turnover of the project would go to uplifting Sir Lowry’s Pass Village, administered through a trust, but according to reports, the approval document notes that only 10% of turnover will accrue to the trust, which must be established before development may commence.

“Our full support for Sir Lowry’s Pass Village getting much needed socio-economic assistance notwithstanding, we believe that this type of development should not be allowed to go ahead. It creates the impression that through offering significant economic-benefits to the local community, it is possible to ‘buy’ rights for a development,” said Mr Smith.

Turning to the matter of the transgression of the urban edge, Mr Smith said: “From a planning context it is a leapfrog, because it will result in going outside the urban edge, and it will therefore create a precedent for similar projects in the future.”

“When we (GCTA) discussed densification with the City during the drafting of the (recently promulgated) Spatial Development Framework, we supported greater densification in urban areas, on condition that  it would protect the urban edge, but (approval of)  this (project) will mean both densification, and encroachment over the urban edge, and that is unacceptable,” said Mr Smith.

But the urban edge is something of a political football, if the City’s recent response to developments projects is anything to go by. The application for sub-division to the City by the controversial Dassenberg housing development adjoining Ou Kaaspeweg above Sun Valley was declined because it fell outside of the urban edge, and the development was deemed to be inappropriate for the area.

By contrast, the 3 100 ha multi-billion Rand Wescape development, set to take place between Meklbosstrand and Atlantis has the full support of the City, Mayor Patricia De Lille specifically, despite the fact that it falls outside of the City’s northern urban edge. In contrast to the Dassenberg development, Wescape is seen as having definite benefits for the local community because it will result in significant infrastructure development, create jobs and connect Atlantis to the CBD.

The other problem, according to Mr Smith is lack of infrastructure capacity in the greater Helderberg. “Council tells us there is insufficient money for much-needed upgrades to existing infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), so where will the money come from for (the infrastructure needed for) new developments?”

Bolander is planning an in-depth article on this controversial development, in due course.

HOUT BAY & LLANDUDNO

ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION GROUP (ECG)

8th March, 2013

To: Environmental and Spatial Planning Directorate,

     Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

     Provincial Government Western Cape

     Private Bag X9086

     Cape Town, 8000

For the attention of: Mr Chris Rabie

Fax: 021 483 4527

E-mail: Christian.Rabie@westerncape.gov.za

Anka.Everts@ westerncape.gov.za

Dear Mr Rabie

Further Comments on Draft Western Cape Land Use Planning Bill, 2013

The Hout Bay & Llandudno Environment Conservation Group (ECG) has just received a copy of the Western Cape Property Development Forum’s (PDF) submission to you in response to your Department’s P.N. 5/2013 of 18 January 2013. The ECG and its member organisations wish to submit the following few additional comments from the ECG in the light of assertions made by the WC PDF.

In paragraph 28 of its submission the PDF states:

“Section 54(2): This clause should be drafted in peremptory terms, i.e. an organ of state that fails to comment within the prescribed period ‘must’ be regarded as having no comment. As long as the exclusion is a possibility rather than a certainty, organs of state will continue to drag their feet, as they have unfortunately done for years and the delays that exemplify our approval processes at the moment will not end. Whilst it is common knowledge that delays caused by other organs’ of state’s lethargic approach to land use applications retard property development and the spin-offs it brings for the public at large, we find the language in which this provision is couched at present disappointing.”

The ECG considers that the action required in the case of organs of state dragging their feet, if this does take place, should be to refer the matter to their higher authority, who will no doubt be able to expedite a response from the officials concerned.

The action by the Department of the Environment and Tourism should never be to exclude other concerned organs of state completely from a particular planning process.

In addition in paragraph 24 of its submission the PDF states:
“Section 47 (proposed addition): As there is a commonly held, but in our view incorrect, opinion that land use approvals may only be given once environmental approval has been granted, we feel strongly that a provision should be included in the Act confirming that this is not the case.”

This proposal is a logical absurdity and is a clear case of putting the cart before the horse. Land Use Approvals are predicated on the specific Environmental Authorisation (EA) for the proposed development and thus the former must take all the conditions specified in the EA into account. If this were not so the EA would have no purpose. The ECG accepts that the process of considering land use approvals might be undertaken in parallel with consideration of the environmental authorisation but the findings of the EA and its conditions must be issued before the land use approvals can be finalised, so that the EA conditions can be taken into account in the land use approvals.

The ECG and its member organisations also feel strongly that Environmental Authorisations must determine land use approvals in accordance with the National Environment Management Act (NEMA).

It is clear throughout the Western Cape Property Development Forum’s submission that the PDF is concerned to have all planning authority and powers resting with Municipalities rather than retain an effective Provincial oversight of planning processes as and when required. It must be concluded from this that Developers believe that they can influence the decisions of municipalities significantly more easily than those of provincial authorities. This serves to reinforce the concerns expressed by the ECG in its earlier submission dated 6 March 2013.

Yours sincerely

Richard Timms

]]> http://gctca.org.za/environment-conservation-group-say-developers-proposal-a-logical-absurdity-a-clear-case-of-putting-the-cart-before-the-horse/feed/ 0 http://gctca.org.za/99-99-of-western-cape-not-engaged-in-unconstiturional-planning-legislation-says-alliance/ http://gctca.org.za/99-99-of-western-cape-not-engaged-in-unconstiturional-planning-legislation-says-alliance/#comments Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:41:04 +0000 WebWolly http://gctca.org.za/?p=1946 ]]>

7^th March 2013

To:   Environmental and Spatial Planning Directorate,

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Provincial Government Western Cape

Private Bag X9086

Cape Town, 8000

For attention: Mr Chris Rabie

By Email: Chrizelle.Kriel@westerncape.gov.za

Dear Mr Rabie

Comments from the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance on the draft Western Cape Land Use Planning Bill, 2013 (LUPB).

DEA&DP correspondence P.N. 5/2013 of 18 January 2013 refers.

The Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance is an Alliance of civic community and environmental oriented organisations, focusing on matters of community interest. Member organisations comprise of Ratepayer & Resident Associations, Environmental Associations and other Civic Associations.

General comment

Democratic Process: Having monitored the exclusive engagement, via forums, between government and those with vested financial, political or occupational interest at both Local and Provincial levels over the past years, it is safe to say that the undemocratic content of this draft bill would not have passed muster had Civic oversight not been expressly excluded from forums during the period of its drafting.

Public Participation Process: From a public’s perspective, the receiving environment is generally viewed as unique and therefore needs to garner far more an intense and deeper public understanding of any proposed draft having far reaching consequences. The need for the Province to achieve the necessary public familiarity with the proposed legislation has been incredibly underestimated. The fact that the department only received “56” submissions previously, out of a total Western Cape population of 5,822,734 (according to Census 2011), indicates that with a .001% engagement rate, attempts at achieving sufficient public participation has clearly failed. A private company putting out a survey of public opinion and to which only .001% responded would either question the methodology, or be left wondering why the public has actually disengaged.

Definition of PARTICIPATION (as in Public Participation Process) = the act of participating.

Dumbing down of governance and civilian oversight under the guise of “cutting down on red tape”: The City of Cape Town planning officials, the mayor and the provincial premier (whose views are well documented on the need to “cut down on red tape”, to muzzle what she terms “professional objectors” and to make it easier for developers to achieve their ends – seem determined to shut down the space available to interested and affected persons in the community who properly wish to influence land use planning issues in the province. Based on Chapter IV as currently worded, there is little doubt that there would be many obstacles put in the way of a community organisation having a say in a local land use planning matter.

LUPB, 2013 specific comment

1. Section 40(3): This section contemplates that a municipality may approve an application for a rezoning, departure or consent use in respect of land or may rezone land of which it is not the owner. Yet, disturbingly, in the whole of section 40 there is no provision for public participation in the decision-making process. This situation flies in the face of the Constitution of South Africa; in particular the provisions of sec.152(1)(e): The objects of local government are to encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government.

2. Section 41: There is a lack of public participation evident in this section dealing with applications for the sub-division of land. This particular type of land use alteration application is a constant source of concern, where the existing erf sizes are a major factor in the very special ‘sense of place’. Again, it is surprising that the authors of this draft bill have not been mindful in its conception of [sec.152 of the Constitution].

3. Section 45: This section, dealing with the removal, suspension or amendment of a restriction, condition or obligation in relation to a piece of land, states that notice of the application must be served on any person whose rights or legitimate expectations are materially and adversely affected. There is however no guidance as to how the rights & legitimate expectations of persons are to be assessed. 

   Unless community organisations can show that they have a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the matter they will have no say in the removal of restrictions, conditions or obligations on land. Throughout this proposed legislation there appears to be no recognition or reference to the many legitimate Civic Bodies. This is unacceptable and there must be a more non-exhaustive definition enabling any person, body or universitas personam when either acting in the public interest or for the purposes of protecting any right enshrined in the Constitution.

4. Section 47: It is our view that land use approvals may only be given once environmental approval has been granted, we feel strongly that a provision should be included in the Act confirming this.

   As with many aspects of the bill there is an overarching concern that far too much power rests with Municipalities, rather than having effective Provincial oversight. The danger in this is that applicants could have easier “influence” over municipalities than provincial authorities.

5. Section 48: Provision should be made for an Environmental Impact Assessment in appropriate circumstances in support of the preservation of the Urban Edge, Conservation Areas and unregistered Public Rights of Way.

6. Section 51(2)(a): The draft includes a restrictive assertion that ‘any person whose rights or legitimate expectations are materially and adversely affected’ – are to be served with notice. There is no guidance as to how the rights & legitimate expectations of persons are to be assessed, however in National Legislation (SPLUMB) a person whose rights are affected includes – ‘An interested person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the land development application proceedings, HOWEVER Sec. 51(5) of the same national Bill goes on to define ‘an interested person’ as: ‘a person having a pecuniary or proprietary interest who is adversely or able to demonstrate that she or he will be adversely affected by the decision of the planning tribunal or an appeal in respect of such a decision.’ Thus, unless community organisations can show that they have a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the matter they will have no say in the removal of restrictions, conditions or obligations on land. Throughout this proposed legislation there appears to be no recognition or reference to the many legitimate Civic Bodies. This is unacceptable and there must be a more non-exhaustive definition enabling any person, body or universitas personam when either acting in the public interest or for the purposes of protecting any right enshrined in the Constitution.

7. Section 54(2): If an organ of state has comment which is supportive of the public interest, but fails to comment within the period referred to in subsection (1) should not be automatically regarded as having no comment. The term ‘may’, as the draft is presently worded is supported.

8. Section 58: The provisions regarding the negative cumulative effect of multiple developments of a similar nature on essential services such as roads, water supply and sewage disposal systems are welcomed. However more emphasis should be laid on the negative cumulative effect at a municipal level, not just at regional or provincial level. Economic and Social considerations override all logic in this respect. It would be preferable to see a written undertaking by the Directors of Roads, Storm Water, Sewerage and Electricity and other basic services, that they guarantee capacity for a new Development. Reports from Private Engineers within these disciplines are not adequate.

9. Chapter VI: The proposed Appeals procedures in Chapter VI are unconstitutional in that they completely take away the ability of the general public to have any say against land use planning decisions taken by a municipality. In virtually all circumstances the draft LUPB requires that appeals against a municipal land use planning decision can only be made to the municipality itself. This renders any appeal useless since decisions on the Appeal will be made by the same officials who made the planning decision in the first place.

   The requirements for public consultation are fundamental to South Africa’s constitutional democracy. South Africa is a representative and participatory democracy. The preamble of [the Constitution] sets out that our goals as a society include laying “the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people” and the establishment of “a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.” The founding values of our constitutional democracy, set out in [Section 1 of the Constitution] include “a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness. [Sec.33 of the Constitution] gives everyone the right to procedurally fair administrative action. The Constitutional Court has spelt out the content of these constitutional imperatives in a number of judgments.

   Thus, as presently drafted, Chapter IV clearly violates [Sec. 152(1)(e) of the Constitution]; it denies communities and community organisations the opportunity of involvement in the matters of local government as far as land use planning matters are concerned, by restricting comment on such matters to a person with a pecuniary or proprietary interest who is adversely or able to demonstrate that she or he will be adversely affected by the decision of the planning tribunal or an appeal in respect of such a decision.

10. Section 71 (2): Add the following words “and who are not practising professionals in these disciplines, or were so within 5 years before their appointment to the committee”.

Gavin Smith

Planning & Land Use Management Committee

Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance

RESIDENTS have laid a charge of fraud against individuals involved in the controversial shopping mall planned to be built at Princess Vlei.

Members of the Princess Vlei Forum, a group opposed to the planned shopping mall and taxi rank to be built on public land, said the developers had “misrepresented themselves” on two occasions, and said there were serious irregularities in the development.

Princess Vlei has been a popular recreation spot on the Cape Flats for generations, particularly with residents from poorer areas neighbouring the green lung.

The forum said the gravity of the matter, coupled with the authorities’ apparent reluctance to take the matter seriously, led forum member Kelvin Cochrane to lodge a complaint of fraud.

“We find it extraordinary that the processes around this development are continuing, despite not only the vociferous and passionate opposition to this development, especially within the local community, but also in the light of the serious irregularities that we have uncovered,” the forum stated.

The fraud complaint is the latest episode in the controversy that has surrounded the proposed mall – the result of an unsolicited bid to the city council many years ago.

The essence of the forum’s complaint is that the city gave rezoning rights, which are needed before the mall can be built, to Insight Property Developers Cape. That company ceased to exist in 2010 when it was deregistered. The forum says the rezoning rights lapsed when the company ceased to exist, as these rights cannot be transferred.

However, the forum said a separate company wrote to the Western Cape Environment Affairs and Development Planning Department, asking for a five-year extension of the validity of the rezoning period.

The forum said Anton Bredell, the MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, had therefore been dealing with an appeal from “an individual who is the director of a separate company”, who was not a director of the original bid company.

“The evidence suggests that this individual had no authority to lodge these appeals,” the forum said.

The other issue concerns the environmental consultants appointed by the city to carry out the environmental impact assessment (EIA) prior to the shopping mall development. The National Environmental Management Act states that a person who compiles an EIA must be independent and “have no business, financial or personal interest” in the proposed project. The law requires EIA practitioners to sign a declaration of independence.

The forum said directors of Insight Property Developers Cape were also directors of the consulting company, Tshukudu Environmental Services, which did the EIA.

“The declaration made no mention of their affiliation to the bid company,” it said.

The EIA company and the provincial government had not responded to requests for comment by late yesterday.

Garreth Bloor, the mayoral committee member for economic, environmental and spatial planning, said yesterday: “The city is aware of an investigation by the National Prosecuting Authority into alleged corruption in the original EIA process. The city will monitor developments.”

The police had not replied to queries on the status of the fraud charge by late yesterday.

6^th March 2013

Environmental and Spatial Planning Directorate,

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Provincial Government Western Cape

Private Bag X9086

Cape Town, 8000

For the attention of: Mr Chris Rabie

Fax:

E-mail:

Dear Mr Rabie

Comments on Draft Western Cape Land Use Planning Act, 2013

I write in response to P.N. 5/2013 of 18 January 2013 to submit comments from the Hout Bay & Llandudno Environment Conservation Group (ECG) on the draft Western Cape Land Use Planning Act, 2013 (LUPA).

As I believe you know, the ECG is a coalition of community organisations and trusts set up to protect and preserve the local built and natural environment. Its member organisations are listed at the foot of this page. The ECG is especially concerned to ensure that all building and other developments are undertaken scrupulously in accordance with the relevant legislation and regulations. In this regard member organisations have requested that the ECG should submit to you their serious concerns about the proposed draft Land Use Planning Act, 2013, which will, if enacted as drafted, prevent the ECG and its member organizations from exercising this oversight.

The ECG has received legal advice from more than one source that the draft Act contravenes the Constitution in a number of respects. In particular it removes the right of community organisations and interested and affected parties to be consulted about planning applications and to submit comments on applications to the authorising body. The draft Act also removes in most cases the protection of Provincial oversight of municipal planning decisions. The overall result of the draft Act would be that, unless they had a “proprietary” interest in the property, community organisations and members of the public would have no right and no opportunity to comment on or object to planning applications however negatively the proposed development would affect them.

South African law requires that persons and community organisations must be given an opportunity to be informed about and to comment on matters affecting their interests before the mind of the official decision-maker becomes fixed. This is enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the right to dignity in Act 107 of 1998, demands that people be allowed to participate meaningfully in matters which will affect them, particularly where it affects a fundamental matter like the ‘sense of place’ of the area in which they live. This means that interested and affected parties must have the nature and implications of a development project fully communicated to them, so that they have adequate information to enable them to comment meaningfully on the project. Thereafter their concerns and views must be taken into account in investigating, assessing and reporting on the potential impacts of the project.

These requirements for public consultation are fundamental to South Africa’s constitutional democracy. South Africa is a representative and participatory democracy. The preamble of the Constitution sets out that our goals as a society include laying “the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people” and the establishment of “a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.” The founding values of our constitutional democracy, set out in section 1 of the Constitution include “a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness. Sec.33 of the Constitution gives everyone the right to procedurally fair administrative action. The Constitutional Court has spelt out the content of these constitutional imperatives in a number of judgments. The LUPA legislation as drafted would destroy a significant part of these constitutional rights and would instead establish a form of bureaucratic government by unchallengeable official decree.

The ECG understands that the draft Western Cape Land Use Planning Act, 2013 (LUPA) is based on the national Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Bill, 2012 (SPLUMB), indeed there are many references to the national SPLUMB in LUPA. However the ECG has also obtained legal advice that SPLUMB is unconstitutional in a number of important ways and it is apparent that some of these deficiencies are passed on to the provincial LUPA.

For example Chapter I of LUPA states that the definition in sec.51(4)(c) of SPLUMB of “a person whose rights are affected” also applies in LUPA.

Sec.51(4)(c) of the national Bill reads:

“A person whose rights are affected includes – (c) An interested person who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the land development application proceedings”

Sec. 51(5) of the national Bill goes on to define “an interested person” as:

“An interested person for the purpose of subsection (4)(c) must be a person having a pecuniary or proprietary interest who is adversely or able to demonstrate that she or he will be adversely affected by the decision of the planning tribunal or an appeal in respect of such a decision.”

Thus, unless community organisations could demonstrate a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the matter they will not be informed about a planning application nor will they have any say in whatever is being applied for, be it re-zoning, subdivision, removal of restrictions or any other conditions or obligations on the land. So the national SPLUMB is unconstitutional in this respect, as is LUPA which derives from it.

The proposed Appeals procedures in Chapter VI of LUPA are also unconstitutional in that they completely take away the ability of the general public to have any say against land use planning decisions taken by a municipality. In virtually all circumstances the draft LUPA requires that appeals against a municipal land use planning decision be can only be made to the municipality itself. This renders any appeal useless since decisions on the Appeal will be made by the same officials who made the planning decision in the first place.

This clear lack of being able to hold a municipality to account for a bad land use planning decision is brought about because sec.64 of LUPA incorporates the provisions of sec.51 of SPLUMB, which states:

(1) A person whose rights are affected by a decision taken by a Municipal Planning Tribunal may appeal against that decision by giving written notice of the appeal and reasons to the municipal manager within 21 days of the date of notification of the decision.

(2) The municipal manager must within a prescribed period submit the appeal to the executive authority of the municipality as the appeal authority.

(3) The appeal authority must consider the appeal and confirm, vary or revoke the decision, but no variation or revocation of a decision may detract from any rights that may have accrued as a result of the decision.

Sec.65 of LUPA does deal with Appeals to Province but the circumstances in which such an appeal can occur are severely circumscribed and do not allow for anyone other than “interested persons” to appeal. As is made clear above, the definition of “interested persons” in LUPA precludes almost everyone from challenging a municipal land use planning decision.

In the Constitution local government has a number of competences reserved to its executive authority and which it has the right to administer but sec.41(1)(c) of the Constitution requires all spheres of government to provide accountable government. This requirement is reinforced by secs. 155(6)(a), 155(7), 152(1)(a) & 155(1)(e). However, the provisions of Chapter VI of the draft LUPB and sec.51 of SPLUMB, which make a municipality its own appeal authority in respect of planning decisions it takes, remove any genuine accountability because, in effect, the municipality is made both judge & jury of its decisions and actions.

The ECG requests that the concerns outlined in this letter should be most carefully considered by an experienced constitutional lawyer and that the resulting legal opinion should be reported back to the ECG for onward transmission to its member organisations. These member organisations are anxious that the rights of the public enshrined in the Constitution must be safeguarded.

Yours sincerely

Richard Timms