Why swift on one, slow on another?

Brian Roberts’ letter ‘If no consequences for breaking the rules . . .’ refers (Courier, February 20).
If this case between PLG Schools and KwaDukuza municipality can be resolved within four months, then why can KDM not resolve another matter which has been pending for two and-a-half years?
I refer to a crêche where no letter of consent has been issued, operating from a granny flat for which no building plans were approved. Is this not breaking the rules?
Why is this crêche exempt from visits by the building inspector, health and safety, social development inspectors or education inspectors?
In response to Moira Myrtle’s letter (‘School is desperately needed, Courier, February 13), yes I agree with KDM focusing on a school where dry walling could be a fire hazard, but what about a crêche operating from a wendy house? Is that not a fire hazard?
Furthermore, the crêche is in a residential area, where the neighbourhood has to bear the brunt of noise pollution and traffic congestion. Are these crêche operators not breaking the rules?
I look forward to KDM’s response.

JCW DIEMEL
Ballito