Date set for 317 appeal ruling

SAVE Our Berea has welcomed the news that the controversial 317 Currie Road development will come before the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein on 13 March 2017. The matter was postponed on 1 November 2016 after the developers objected to one of the judges at the appeal hearing.

Save Our Berea‘s Kevin Dunkley and Cheryl Johnson said they welcomed the news that a date had finally been set.

“This case has dragged on for too long. The residents of the Berea want answers, and those negatively affected by the proximity of this development want closure.”

“We are aware that the DA’s Geoff Pullan and Ward 27 Councillor Martin Meyer put forward a motion to council calling for a full report from the City Manager, as well as calling for an independent commission of enquiry into the debacle. What has happened to this motion? The ratepayers who footed the bill for the legal costs of the High Court case and now the appeal, deserve to know what they were paying for – and why,” said Johnson.

Dunkley and Johnson said when Durban High Court judge Esther Steyn ordered the demolition of the building at 317 Currie Road, the news was met with jubilation by most Berea residents, as they felt helpless in the face of a string of decisions around town planning and spot rezoning that made no sense, and had caused the derogation of values in what is normally the largest investment that will be made in their lifetime – the value of their residential homes.

“Arising out of this court case, were a number of issues that did not form part of the judgment. Land derives its value by what can be built on it. The more that can be built, the more it is worth. When the developers bought 317, they paid R5,8-million for a site zoned General Residential I, which is the same zoning of all adjacent and surrounding properties. That zoning allowed them to build 1860m2 of building subject to all the other normal planning conditions being coverage, building lines, height restrictions and side spaces,” said Dunkley.

He said by the stroke of a pen, and with the backing of the department in question, the planning committee and the full council, 317 Currie Road was rezoned General Residential 5 – a zoning never used outside the CBD and the beachfront – and a zoning that compromised most of the planning regulations of the Berea.

“So the developer who paid a market price for the land was basically enriched by approximately R25-million before he laid the first brick. Why would the City do this for a single developer at the expense of all the surrounding citizens who own property and have seen their property values go down. The High Court criticised the role played by the Municipality in the 317 Currie Road case and it was not an isolated incident nor was it a one-off mistake,” he said.

He said Save our Berea was aware of other properties where the same “mistakes” were made, and said the only reason why these cases never went to court was that the people affected were unable to afford the costs of legal action.

“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. The gross level of incompetence by some Municipality functionaries also raises serious questions as to what precisely went on. The 317 Currie Road debacle encapsulates exactly what is wrong with our local government,” said Johnson.

They said the fact that the report by the Integrity and Investigation Unit was being withheld after Advocate Pops Aboobaker, had demanded the investigation be carried out to determine who was responsible, was of concern.

“The Constitution of South Africa entrenches our right to information. It was included to protect the citizens of this country and not as a tool for politicians and officials to hide their incompetence and irregular and/or illegal activities,” said Dunkley.

On 13 March, judges of the Bloemfontein court will decide whether to uphold Steyn’s judgement to demolish the nine-storey ‘monstrosity’ building. In this case, Steyn found that public notice rules and rezoning of the building was unlawful. The developer is appealing her ruling, as it argues it had municipal approval for the rezoning of the site. However the municipality later admitted neighbours had not been given proper notice of the intended rezoning from general residential one (a four-storey development) to general residential five. The municipality did, however, disagree with the ruling to demolish the building.