Edenvale ward councillors are concerned about the new development between Elm Street and the N3 in Edenvale.
In a statement received from ward councillors, Clr Bill Rundle and Clr Heather Hart, both state their support of new developments but not the proposed development in Edenvale.
“The indecent haste with which the town planning application for this development was rushed through the approval process has raised some eyebrows. Previously, planning applications for this land had been opposed and in this case it was a matter of months for the developer to be given approval. We strongly object to the City Planning Department’s (CPED) approval of a new shopping development,” both councillors stated.
The councillors mentioned the following concerns:
- The public notice was erected onto a wooden pole in the middle of the empty site on the side of the road between weeds and grass.
“It was only seen by one resident who lodged an objection and brought it to the attention of the ward councillors. It is inconceivable that not one of the hundreds of motorists and residents who drive past the area on a daily basis would have failed to see the notice if it had been visibly erected.”
- Neither Clr Hart, nor Clr Rundle, were given dates for the tribunal which was to review the application.
- The reasons that no development in the past had been approved have not been addressed.
- Road access issues have worsened since motorists began using Edenvale as an alternative route to the surrounding highway.
- The development will impact on traffic.
“It is also in direct contravention to the metro’s special development framework for Edenvale, which is to redevelop the Central Business District (CBD) and halt the development of competing centres. Out-of-town-centre and town border commercial developments were halted some years ago in order to allow the Edenvale City Improvement District (ECID) to revive the flagging fortunes of Edenvale.”
The NEWS forwarded a media inquiry to the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and requested comment by September 4.
At the time of going to print, no comment had been received.
