Residents of Helderkruin, especially those living on Aurum Street that will be the entrance to the controversial development, paint a different picture than the one Alf Levin of Township Realtors did as reported in the Record’s 26 July edition.
Although the author of the appeal wants to stay anonymous, the group opposing the development has met with the Record on 1 August to voice their concerns. The Record spoke to Charel Hanekom who was willing to go public on behalf of the group.
“We are not against the development,” says Hanekom.
“We are against the density of the development. We also feel that esthetically and architecturally the development does not fit in with the area,” Hanekom explained the group’s agenda.
Hanekom also explained that since the outset of the project “nothing was above board”. The group is also willing to testify under oath regarding the information that they now divulge.
The group has made a vast number of documents available to the Record that include their appeal. The appeal was presented to the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) and includes the following:
• Lapsing of the RoD: Project authorised only for the period 5 December 2007 – 5 December 2012 – Site clearance has only started in March 2013, therefore the applicant Township Realtors has to re-apply.
• Fatally flawed Public Participation Process required in terms of the previous regulations throughout the application process conducted in 2006 – the authors of the appeal say they have not been given notice once. Hanekom says that in January 2008 he found a notice board lying face down in the bushes in the middle of the site where no one would have seen it.
According to regulations “An applicant … is responsible for the public participation process to ensure that all interested parties, including government departments that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity, are given the opportunity to participate in all the relevant procedures contemplated in these regulations”.
• Fatally flawed Public Participation Process with regard to stakeholder notification for EA dated 5 December 2007.
• During a meeting held on 14 June 2013, the environmental impact practitioner was unable to provide any proof of notification to stakeholders and claimed that due to a “computer crash” she does not have proof anymore. This clearly highlights the poor record keeping, which is a non-compliant in terms of the Environmental Conservation Act (ECA) and National Environmental Act (NEMA).
• Fatally flawed Public Participation Process with regard to stakeholder notification for Amended Record of Decision (RoD) dated 17 April 2008.
• Absence of Any Public Participation Process with regard to stakeholder notification for RoD dated 12 May 2012.
• Factors informing the decision by GDARD by issuance of the RoD dated 5 December 2012 was incomplete, inaccurate and misleading.
• The Traffic Impact Assessment conducted dated April 2013 is “fatally flawed”. According to Hanekom he viewed the report and it stated that daily in Aurum Street the traffic consists of only six cars. He said that he drives up and down more than six times a day himself. The report also says that one taxi twice a day will be sufficient to serve the 186 units. (If it is assumed that four people stay in an unit this amounts to 744 people). If every unit owns one car it means that at least a 186 cars will be using the quite narrow cul de sac daily as opposed to six.
• No mitigation measures provided for the extremely negative impact on the socio-economic conditions of the current home owners. According to the group the development will impact negatively on their property values, which currently stands at an average of R2 million per property. The appeal states that “the high density housing development is not in line with the current tranquil upmarket nature of the neighbourhood”.
• The Applicant requires a Water Use Licence (WUL) in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) before construction may commence. Levin allegedly only applied for the licence this year, a process that can take up to two years.
• According to the appeal the “applicant is already in contravention of its Environmental assessment (EA), as a result of vegetation clearance outside the approved development area”.
The group also stand by the fact that in front of witnesses Levin blatantly threatened that if they tried to oppose the development he would send in squatters to devaluate their properties. This was denied by Levin, saying that he rather highlighted the risk that squatters might take over the property.
Other concerns include the 186 units’ wheelie bins that will be left outside on collection day and the accompanying scavenging in the short cul de sac .
Although they can not prove it they do not believe that the property has not been sold to Renico yet owing to the fact that no developer will buy land of which all rights are not in place.
Furthermore the original plans that were submitted show single standing units whereas Renico’s development plans show rows of single multi-units that are almost “barrack-like”.
The Record has approached Renico’s Nico Louw for comment. According to Louw these objections are flawed and the group “are desperately clutching at straws”.
Levin unfortunately was on holiday but was more than willing to comment and provide more proof of his side of the feud.
