Ward councillor Siobhan Muller writes:
My reply to the letter “Not all voters are stupid” as printed in the Rekord North dated 25 August 2017 on page 6 and “Narrow move on narrow road” from Rekord East dated 8 September 2017.
Various letters have been written regarding the cul-de-sac in Silverton which, as a public road, must be extended to allow the development of land.
Let’s set the facts straight:
– The ward councillor did present the objections of the residents to the tribunal.
– The tribunal made an informed planning decision, not one based on favouring any side.
– A ward councillor represents all land owners in their ward, not only objectors.
– When evaluating a planning application, a ward councillor must keep the rights of all land owners in mind, as well as the policies of the Tshwane metro, and applicable legislation.
– It is not the point of view of either that is looked at, but the rights of both. A councillor may comment but not object to an application.
In this case, a piece of land had no other possibility for an entrance than an existing municipal piece of land that was always intended to extend the road.
Residents who object to a development must attend a tribunal hearing themselves.
The objectors in question refused to attend the hearing in Centurion and wanted it moved to a convenient location near their homes.
This is not possible as there are legal requirements.
As far as the appeal goes – the objectors did not appeal the decision.
If you do not submit a valid appeal, there is no appeal to be dismissed or upheld.
With regards to the ownership of the cul-de-sac – the SG diagram and the ownership information of the cul-de-sac has been checked and it is definitely owned, controlled and managed by the municipality.
There is no ownership history recorded other than the municipality, which means that nobody else owned it prior to the municipality so I doubt whether it was registered in favour of anybody else.
The photo used in the last letter shows cars parked on either side of the road and yet a car could still easily drive between them.
This shows the road is in fact not as narrow as stated but in fact a normal residential road.
In the end, the Municipal Planning Tribunal made a decision on the application and not the ward councillor.
The decision was based on policy, law and facts.
