Church and crèche proposal draws objections from Douglasdale residents
Residents question the proposed church and crèche, ongoing building work and the property’s zoning as the application moves through the city’s planning process.
Residents of Douglasdale are questioning a proposal to turn a residential property into a church and crèche, raising concerns about its impact on the neighbourhood, ongoing construction and the property’s zoning.
The proposed development has attracted objections from residents seeking clarity on how the property, previously confirmed by the City of Johannesburg as being approved for a dwelling house, is now the subject of an application for a place of worship and learning institution.
“My concern is the impact on the area,” resident Megan Bennet said, “including noise, increased traffic and the change to the peaceful character of the area. I urge the municipality to take the objections seriously before approving the application.”
Sarah Crowther, a homeowner at Lonerock Estate, said residents wanted their objections to be properly considered. “It is paramount that our objections are heard and acted on.”
Belinda De Grey Birch questioned why a development of this nature was being proposed in a residential area. “Why would they choose a quiet residential area? I am concerned about how this will affect property values.”
Read more: What is Creche syndrome?
Marilyn Coombe-Heath, a resident of more than 40 years, said she was surprised to learn that a school was also part of the application, while Janice Labuschagne, of the Glenluce South Security Committee, said the committee was waiting for responses from authorities. “The owner should have engaged with neighbours for long-term community relationships, even if it is not legally required, as they are applying to operate a church.” Residents have also questioned the property’s zoning and construction taking place on the site.
Last year, City of Johannesburg chief town planner Sibusiso Langa confirmed that the property was approved for a dwelling house and not a church. The publication approached Langa on August 28 for clarity on the current application, including why a public notice referring to the property as a place of worship had been issued.
Kathy Klaver, a concerned resident, said she witnessed the notice being placed on the gate on August 12, but noted that it did not contain a notice date. Residents were later told by Metro Vision via email that September 12 was the deadline for objections to be submitted to the council and Metro Vision.
The publication approached urban and regional planner Olwethu Baartman, whose contact details appear on the site notice at the entrance to the property. Baartman stressed that the application should not be treated as an approval and said the process remained with the city. “They’re still applying. We have not spoken to the city officials. We have not gone to tribunal. We have done nothing except put up site notices. That’s all we’ve done.”
According to Baartman, the application seeks permission to convert existing structures on the property for use as a church and crèche. Residents, however, are confused by this explanation as a new building is also being constructed on the property. Baartman said property owners have a right to apply for different uses, provided those uses are considered and approved through the relevant municipal planning process. “The city is the one that’s going to decide. Not you, it’s not us, it’s not the residents.” She also said the owner was not legally required to engage directly with residents at this stage.
Baartman repeatedly referred the publication to the city’s planning by-law and town planning scheme, saying the applicable uses and processes were contained within the municipal planning framework. “It has not been approved. We are still applying.”
Baartman, who said she previously worked in municipal planning for seven years and left in 2024, stressed that the process was governed by South African law. Baartman said a site notice had been put up on August 15 and that the applicable objection period was 28 days.
Residents have questioned whether they were given enough time to participate, particularly because they used August 12, as the date the notice was placed on the gate. Baartman challenged claims that residents had insufficient time to object, pointing to the number of submissions received. The publication was told by residents that about 150 objections had been submitted. “The very first objection was on the very same day that I put up that site notice,” Baartman said.
What does Section 19 say?
Section 19 of the City of Johannesburg Municipal Planning By-law deals with consent-use applications. It requires a site notice to be displayed and provides for a 28-day period for objections, comments or representations to be submitted to the city and applicant. The by-law also provides for notification of neighbouring property owners and states that due regard must be given to objections and representations submitted within the required period before a decision is taken.
Residents also raised allegations of fraud. Baartman said residents were entitled to raise allegations and that their concerns would ultimately be dealt with through the formal planning process. She said interested and affected parties would be able to attend tribunal proceedings. “You yourself are welcome to come to tribunal if you are an interested and affected member,” Baartman said.
Also read: Resident opens creche for abandoned children
Baartman, however, said the applicants did not control when the tribunal would take place, or how interested and affected parties would be notified. “The municipality is the one that does the notification. We have no control over that.”
Fourways Review has again approached the city for clarity on the property’s current zoning, the application and how the current process relates to the zoning information provided by Langa last year. At the time of publication, no response had been received from the department despite several follow-ups. For now, the application remains before the city and, according to Baartman, has not been approved.
Residents identified the property owner and said they had been in contact with him. Comment was sought from the owner on September 22 and 24, but no response had been received at the time of publication.
Follow us on our Whatsapp channel, Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok for the latest updates!



