Residents against high-density accommodation plans

Residents living in suburbs fast becoming overcrowded are against the way the municipality aims to provide accommodation.

One of the concerns in suburbs such as Malvern and Cyrildene, is the rate at which backyard dwellings are mushrooming. While several parts of Cyrildene are bursting at the seams with backyard dwellings made of brick and Malvern marred by overcrowded houses surrounded by tin shacks, the concerns of long-standing residents are the same.

With properties in some cases being home to more than 20 people, traffic congestion is severe, illegal dumping and noise is rife, health hazards are worrying and other bylaw contraventions are rampant.

Residents believe property values are decreasing and instead of the city taking action, it is forcing illegal activities down their throats by legalising them through its plans to allow high-density accommodation.

During the meeting, officials stated that the city regards backyard dwellings as alternate accommodation.

Mr Preggie Naidoo, from the building control department, said what is going on in certain suburbs is proof that there is a need for accommodation.

“This accommodation is now going to be provided through the Corridors of Freedom. We believe when we make an area accessible and people can source income, there will be more compliance. We are looking at allowing proper brick structures as backyard dwellings and not haphazard structures. Shacks are a no-no. There is no investment loss for us in a shack. The scheme specifies that dwellings must be built with bricks. There will be rules and we will also take into consideration the amount of space available when dwellings are built. The number of dwellings per property will also depend on the suburb. For example, the number of dwellings allowed in a suburb such as Bryanston is different from what is allowed in Braamfischerville. We will also take those who contravene the bylaws to court,” he said.

Several residents left the meeting fuming. A community member, who attended the meeting, said the city fails to realise that any area crammed, be it with shacks or brick structures, has the same negative impact. Community members questioned how council is going to take action against people contravening the bylaws after the implementation of an accommodation plan if it has “proven it does not have the willpower to take action against people currently contravening the bylaws”.

Ms Valda Gossmann, from the Bruma Residents’ Association said, “At the end of the day, whether you build shacks in a backyard or several dwellings made out of bricks, you are still breaking the law. The current bylaws do not allow this. Instead of taking action, the city wants to legalise these illegal activities.”

Mr Maurizio Galimberti, the chairperson of the Cyrildene Security Initiative, said council’s plan to create high-density accommodation is of huge concern.

“Basically, the city is giving the green light for the type of accommodation already in existence in Cyrildene, whether law-abiding residents like it or not. Council does not have the bite to enforce the law. Officials are not capable of enforcing the law and this is why they are leaning towards legalising illegal activities.”

Mr Galimberti said he has considered all his options. “I have gone through what I should do. One part of me says I should leave and the other says I should stay. This is distressing because my intention was to continue living here. I have been living in Cyrildene for more than 25 years. Property values are decreasing and I put the blame on council. I believe there is no hope for Cyrildene if council does not put its foot down. Council is quick to increase rates yet the area is deteriorating. Years ago, council’s budget was a quarter of what it is today yet then it ran efficiently,” he said.

Ms Gossmann warned of further impact to the infrastructure and possible health hazards if illegal activities continue or are legalised.

“Council has to realise that it cannot go on like this. It cannot allow people to densify properties without making provision. This could have serious implications for the infrastructure and health,” she said.

Mr Sagren Pillay, from the Cyrildene Community Forum, said the current state of Cyrildene is proof that densification is not the way to go. “If the density of an area is too much, it would be like putting too many rats in a small box. Overpopulating an area cannot be good for anyone. There could be serious health implications as well as insufficient infrastructure,” he said.

In response to the questions raised by the EXPRESS, Mr Nthatisi Modingoane from the City of Johannesburg (CoJ), said complaints about land use are investigated and if found, a solution through litigation processes is instigated.

Although residents believe Mr Naidoo’s comments about the city’s accommodation plans came across as “plans set in stone for the area”, in answers to questions raised by the EXPRESS, the city said alternative accommodation has not been decided upon yet.

Mr David Chamboko, the land use management manager at the department of development planning, said, “Alternative accommodation was mentioned and it was made clear that it is still under discussion, not decided upon yet. Communities will be involved once it has been decided upon.”

When asked to provide detail about how council is going to address an “already failing and under pressure infrastructure” with regards to the power grid and sewerage system for example, he said infrastructure is maintained and based on pressure for development, upgraded. “Council cannot approve development if there is no infrastructure,” he said.

When asked how council is going to cope and improve the infrastructure once these areas are given the green light for backyard dwellings, Mr Chamboko said, “Our city transformation department is looking at a densification strategy and that will be addressed at that stage.”

Among other questions asked and answers provided were:

•  Officials said there is a need for alternate accommodation and this is why council is supporting backyard dwellings. When was this plan approved and by whom? Who will enforce the laws/bylaws related to this plan?

Answer: The plan is not concluded yet and no proper response can be granted at this stage.

•  Are there documents explaining what this plan is about?

Answer: Not yet.

•  Please provide detail on this accommodation plan. What does it entail? How is it going to be implemented? Has it already started in other areas? Is it working?

Answer: Not yet.

•  Was the public informed prior to this plan being implemented? Was there public participation/objection and suggestion opportunities? If not, why not?

Answer: There is no approved plan yet.

@JoziReporter