Prospect of school in St Winifreds raises resident’s ire

A St Winifreds resident is objecting to an approved commercial undertaking on lot 974, located in Almond Road.

Resident Jeff van Belkum queried when this was approved and what processes were followed.

What is to be built on the property is unclear and he says eThekwini Municipality is not forthcoming with details, despite his repeated requests for clarity.

When asked by the Sun, eThekwini Municipality’s head of communications, Tozi Mthethwa said a special consent application is being considered for an education facility to be built on the land in question.

“The applicant is still attending to items of referral and the application will be advertised afterwards if they still want to proceed. No building plans have been approved at this stage.”

READ ALSO: Residents concerned about St Winifreds development

However, Van Belkum feels strongly about the unsuitability of the land for development. “It seems the peaceful suburb of St Winifreds has been targeted for destruction,” he said, also referring to the proposal of lot 970 for the construction of 202 residential flats which the SUN reported on in September.

“Requests for information have not been forthcoming. My attempt to discuss lot 974 with the responsible official elicited a hostile response. Why hostile? The construction projects proposed are slap-bang in the middle of a purely residential area.”

During a drive around the area with the SUN, he said it is clear the nature and topography of the land is entirely unsuitable for what is proposed. “Yet perfectly suitable, unencumbered vacant land is available just one kilometre away,” said Van Belkum.

“The municipality has not consulted with the affected community and shows reckless disregard for the basic rights of its citizens. In effect, citizens have no rights.

The ward councillor appears to have turned his back on his constituents. He has been fully aware of the proposals for a considerable time, yet has not consulted affected residents at any time. He is currently actively promoting the proposals. The individual land owners, responsible municipal officials and the ward councillor must be held liable,” said Van Belkum.

READ ALSO: Add a ‘spring’ to your step and join Toti revamp

“While I have always respected Mr van Belkum’s opinions, it is unfortunately not the first time that he draws conclusions without the correct facts,” said Cllr Beetge.

“As much as he hopes to deny that there was an opportunity for citizen participation, a process which provides private individuals with an opportunity to influence public decisions, his own submission along with those of other concerned residents, are on record with town planning and are a reminder that prescribed processes were indeed followed.

The process, however goes both ways, for as much as the owners of property have the right to make an application for rezoning or relaxation, so do the public and affected parties have the right to raise objections or highlight concerns that the town planning department and committee has to take into consideration, prior to making recommendations to council.

Having had the opportunity to peruse the said appeals, the same points were found to be repeated over and over to the point where copies were actually made and signed by different people. It’s not necessarily the quantity of submissions, but the content thereof that is considered.

For the record I neither know, nor have I ever met the would-be developers of either lot 14/970 or 974. While I do, like many others, stand in favour of formalised development on lots that meet the criteria for human settlement, one cannot ignore the rights of either party during these processes.

As much as Mr Van Belkum might believe a cause is just, likewise others including developers, believe theirs to be correct.

The entire debate could possibly have been avoided, had Impala Park not decided to sell off lot 14/970 a few years ago, but rather developed it in line with the existing (land uses).

Notwithstanding that, I have also alerted the town planning department to a few matters I considered pertinent:

1. The zoning of portions 17 and 18 of lot 974 from special residential 900 to hospital or frailcare facility approved 10 February 2016 (to date no development plans have been submitted for consideration) that are adjacent to lot 14/970.

2. Traffic assessment of November 2015 which confirmed the road infrastructure as being able to accommodate additional traffic volumes (the combined volume of both the approved and applied application would exceed these volumes).

3. Associated noise levels and activity of hospital or institution, residential and retirement village in proximity to each other.

4. Restriction on height as contained in the title deeds as per court documents of 2015 and the fact that there has been no application for relaxation of the restrictions.

5. Susceptibility of stormwater infrastructure drainage south of both adjoining lots into the lower end of Impala, Wessex, Trevor Wadley and Winifred Close.

6. Sewage reticulation project along Almond Road and areas west thereof which will serve to connect 200 households to the Kingsburgh Treatment Works, which in turn has implications on water use and water use licensing.

7. Consideration by developers in developing to enhance the existing Impala Park development and taking into consideration the possible establishment of a hospital or frailcare facility on neighbouring lot 974.