CIVIC organisation, Save Our Berea, is calling upon the Public Protector to investigate how the 317 Currie Road development zoning and plans were passed and the workings of the Land Use Management department of the eThekwini Municipality and the town planning sub-committee.
In a media release this morning, Save Our Berea said the recent judgement by the Durban High Court had criticised the role played by the Municipality in the 317 Currie Road debacle. “This case was not an isolated incident nor a one- off mistake. In the two years of existence of Save Our Berea, there have been numerous other properties where the same “mistakes” were made. The only reason why these matters were not taken to court was that the people affected were unable to afford the costs of legal action,” it stated in the release.
According to SOB, there have been many other decisions made by the town planning committee that fly in the face of the existing town planning schemes and where numerous objections by neighbours and interested parties have been ignored. It said 317 case raised a number of questions in respect of which answers were required from the Municipality. These include:
(1) Why did the Municipality choose to defend the application and then at the last minute decided to abide by the decision of the court?
(2) Why did the Municipality assist the developer by refusing to provide information?
(3) On what basis did the Municipality issue a demolition order without reference to AMAFA?
(4) Why did the Municipality allow the rezoning application to proceed when one of its own functionaries indicated in a letter addressed to the developer:
a) that some residents had not received the notice of rezoning; and
b) that there was no reason the property could not be developed in accordance with a GR1 zoning.
(5) Why did the Municipality allow a GR1 plan to be passed while an application for a GR5 zoning was pending?
(6) Why did the Municipality not take steps against the developer when foundations which were clearly inconsistent with GR1 zoning were being erected by the developer?
(7) Why did the Municipality allow the developer to proceed unlawfully for a period of three years allowing the developer to reach two stories before a plan was submitted in 2014?
(8) Why did the Municipality allow the developer to get away with a notice of rezoning which was “wholly inadequate and did not meet the requirements of the Ordinance” (court judgment)?
(9) How could the Municipality have been satisfied that the requirements of Section 7 of the Building Standards Act had been complied with when the development clearly:
a) disfigured the area in which it is erected;
b) was unsightly and objectionable;
c) impacted adversely on adjoining properties which had depreciated by more than R25 million.
“These and many other questions arise. The Municipality is duty bound to investigate these matters and to report back to the citizens of Durban. The indulgences given by the Municipality to the developer are a cause for concern and raise questions as to the competence of a whole range of departments within the town planning structure through which the plans and the application for rezoning would have passed. Did all these departments make a mistake? The gross level of incompetence by the Municipality functionaries raises serious questions as to what precisely went on in the 317 debacle,” it said in the release.
