SPATIAL PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND MINUTES LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
2009-10-14
SPEL17/10/09 APPLICATION IN TERMS OF THE LESS FORMAL TOWNSHIP
ESTABLISHMENT ACT FOR THE AMENDMENT OF A
CONDITION OF DESIGNATION AND FOR ADDITIONAL
TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT; AND IN TERMS OF THE LAND
USE PLANNING ORDINANCE FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION
AND DEPARTURES: PORTIONS OR REMAINDER ERVEN
2848, 6355 AND 7296 AND ERF 7309 HOUT BAY
LUM/33/2848/EP/BB
Tabled document

Copy of email dated 13 October 2009 from the Residents’ Association of Hout Bay. The Chairperson asked Ms. Ogle, the Legal Adviser to the Committee, to address the Committee on the issue of the request by an objector for an interview in light of the fact that the Committee would not be the final decision maker and would be making a recommendation to the Provincial Administration..

Ms. Ogle addressed the Committee on the issue of the interview request and at the conclusion of the address said that there was no legal obligation for the Committee to grant an interview. Ms. Ogle asked that it be recorded that there were full and comprehensive objections attached to the report. A copy of an email dated 13 October 2009 from the Residents”

Association of Hout Bay motivating the interview request was tabled before the Committee. Alderman Watkyns said, after reading the tabled copy of the email, that it was clear that the matter was extremely sensitive with a long history. He suggested that an interview should be granted.

Alderman Holderness said that she agreed with Alderman Watkyns about the sensitivity of the matter.

Mr. R Walton, Department : Planning and Building Development Management, pointed out that in addition to the interview request by the Residents” Association of Hout Bay, there was also an interview request from Mr. T Brümmer.

Alderman Watkyns said that in the written submission by Mr. Brümmer there was mention of alternatives and that issue was not before the Committee for consideration. He said that in those circumstances if the Committee did decide to grant Mr. Brümmer

An interview it should be pointed out that the issue of alternatives was not on the table for discussion.

Mrs C Stone, Director : Spatial Planning and Urban Design, then addressed the committee on the public engagement process that had been followed in respect of the application. She said that the public engagement process had far exceeded the statutory requirements in terms of public engagement. She drew attention to parallel processes with regard to other legislative requirements related to the application, and to the consequences of the Committee delaying a decision on the application. She said that the decision would rest with the Provincial Administration and that she was aware that constituencies within Hout Bay had made representations to the MEC in respect of the application.

Mr. J van der Westhuizen suggested that in making a decision on the interview request, it might be useful for the consultants CNdV Africa to give the Committee clarity on the boundaries of the originally declared area.

The Chairperson suggested that to avoid delays the question as to whether the objectors should rather be given the opportunity of an interview with the Provincial Administration as the decision maker, should be considered by the Committee.

Alderman Holderness proposed that the Committee deal with the proposal but said that she reserved her right to ask for an interview prior to any decision being made. Mr. Walton then introduced the report to the Committee and suggested that a presentation by the consultants would assist the members of the Committee with their deliberations on the matter.

The consultants CNdV Africa (Mr. S Nicks and Mr. N Titus) then gave the Committee a power point presentation on the application.

Following the presentation the Chairperson opened the floor to questions from members and officials.

Questions put by Alderman Watkyns (BW), Alderman Holderness (NH) and Councillor Salwary (MS) related inter alia to :

The location of the pipe track and its relationship the development proposal. (BW)
The location of the property discussed in 2002 that was set aside for recreational use. (BW)
What land was affected by the interdict granted to the Hout Bay Residents’ Association and what were the implications of the interdict with regard to the application.(BW)
What was the status of the proposal with regard to the purchasing of the YMCA site. (BW)
The use of the Less Formal Township Establishment Act (LEFTEA) for the application with regards to concerns about controls on land uses like for example shebeens. (BW)
The public participation process followed with regard to the beneficiaries. (MS)
What provision would be made for taxi ranks. (MS)
What provision would be made for schools. (MS)
How would approving the application relate to previous processes, agreements and expectations, and how did the legal parameters on those issues relate to the application that was before the Committee. (NH)
What would happen to the people living on the site when construction got under way. (NH)
What mechanism would be used to supercede LEFTEA with the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO). (BW)

Responses to questions put were given by Mr. Nicks, Mrs Stone, Mr. Walton, Mr. van der Westhuizen and Ms Ogle.

The Chairperson then put the question as to how the Committee would want to respond to the interview requests by the two objectors. She suggested that in light of the fact that the Committee would be making a recommendation to the Provisional administration, the Committee ask that the Provincial Administration give consideration to the requests for an interview.

Alderman Holderness pointed out that there were questions and issues that had been raised by the objectors that the Committee would not be able to deal with and some of those issues were relocation of people, management, and other issues that the Provincial administration would have to deal with.

The members of the Committee agreed with the suggestion put forward by the Chairperson on how to deal with the interview requests.

Alderman Watkyns asked that the request to the Provincial Administration about considering the interview request be put in as strong a way as possible.

Ms. Ogle then referred the Committee to folio 1206 recommendation 13.4 in the report where it was recommended that the proposed Rezoning and Subdivision be supported. She asked if it would be the intention that the Committee would elect not to exercise its delegations.

Ms. Ogle also referred to recommendation 13.5 regarding street names and said that it was not an issue that should be submitted to the Provincial Administration but should instead be submitted to the relevant Subcouncil.

Mr. Walton pointed out that there were two recommendations numbered 13.5. He agreed that the recommendation 13.5 related to street names should be submitted to the Subcouncil. Mr. Walton confirmed that it was the intention that the Committee would choose not to exercise its delegations in terms of both recommendation 13.4 and the recommendation 13.5 regarding Departures. RESOLVED

That the interview request by the Residents’ Association of Hout Bay, and by Mr. T Brümmer, BE REFUSED for the reason that the Spatial Planning, Environment and Land Use Management Committee (Spelum) would not be making a decision but would instead be making a recommendation to the Competent Authority, and the reason that there were issues raised in the objections that could not be considered by Spelum..
That the Competent Authority be requested to give earnest consideration to the requests by the Residents’ Association of Hout Bay, and by Mr. T Brümmer, for the opportunity to have an interview.

FURTHER RESOLVED

TO RECOMMEND to the Competent Authority that

the proposed Amendment of a Condition of Designation, in terms of the Less Formal Township Establishment Act, 1991 (Act 113 of 1991) as set out in Annexure “A” to the report, BE APPROVED and
the proposed amendment of the Approved Layout Plan in terms of Section 3 of the Less Formal Township Establishment Act, 1991 (Act 113 of 1991) on portions of Remainder Erven 6355 and 2848, Hout Bay, as set out in Annexure “A” to the report, BE APPROVED and
the proposed Layout Plan in terms of Section 3 of the Less Formal Township Establishment Act, 1991 (Act 113 of 1991) on Erf 7309, Hout Bay, as set out in Annexure “A” to the report, BE APPROVED and
the proposed Rezoning and Subdivision in terms of Sections 17 and 24 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance, 15 of 1985, on portion of Remainder Erven 2848 and 7296, Hout Bay, as set out in Annexure “A”, BE APPROVED and
the proposed Departures in terms of Section 15 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance, 15 of 1985, on portion of Remainder Erven 2848, 6355 and 7296 and Erf 7309, Hout Bay, as set out in Annexure “A” to the report, BE APPROVED.

That the above decisions by the Spatial Planning, Environment and Land Use Management Committee (Spelum) BE REFERRED TO COUNCIL to confirm, vary or revoke the above decisions in view of the fact that although the System of Delegations does provide a power for Spelum
That the it be recommended that the decisions 1 to 1.5 above by Spelum BE CONFIRMED by Council.

The decisions 1A to 1E above were made for the reasons as set out in the report dated 2009-10-02.