JUST WONDERING of Van Riebeeck Park writes:
It is, I believe, a generally-accepted fact that the land between a house boundary line and the kerbside (usually simply referred to as the ‘pavement’ or ‘sidewalk’) belongs to the municipality.
My question is, is it the responsibility of the municipality or of the occupier (or the owner, if not the person occupying the premises) to keep this “council pavement” neat and tidy?
Driving around Edleen, Van Riebeeck Park, Birchleigh, Glen Marais, Aston Manor and elsewhere in Kempton Park, most of the properties have well-kept pavements, whether simply grass, filled with flowers and shrubs, paved, or a combination of all these.
However, sadly, there are some homes where the occupiers appear to not take pride in where they live. I’ve seen the shells of rusty old vehicles (two old VW Beetles in particular) “adorn” pavements on at least two roads (one in Van Riebeeck Park, one in Glen Marais). Building rubble is often left for weeks if not months, while others have a proliferation of weeds growing at least two feet tall (as seen on a Van Riebeeck Park road).
Don’t these people realise they are spoiling their neighbourhoods for others? Does the VW Beetle advertising products/services contravene any by-laws? If so, shouldn’t the enforcers (the EMPD, I believe) take the required action against the offenders?
If maintaining the pavement or sidewalk is the responsibility of the municipality, then surely it should periodically attend to overgrown pavements. We are fortunate in having several “green lungs”, open grassed spaces, as well as parks in Kempton Park and its environs. Surely, when the relevant department does grass-cutting of these and staff see that one of its pavements needs attention, can’t they just get on with it and cut/tidy as necessary?
It is, after all, ultimately, the council’s land.
