EDITOR – The recently reported ‘development’ proposals aimed at the suburb of St Winifreds raise the spectre of imminent destruction of a stable, peaceable environment, not to mention the creation of dangerous, harmful conditions.
Question is, why would the authorities facilitate the destruction of a longstanding residential suburb by allowing the construction of monstrosities on clearly unsuitable land, when abundant unencumbered land is readily available, just one kilometre away, on the Northern and Western boundaries?
With a biased ward representative having already publicly promoted the proposals, simultaneously mocking and rubbishing the concerns of residents, who will speak to the basic rights of those affected?
As is the norm, obtaining pertinent information and documentation from officialdom is problematic. In theory, citizens’ rights and property are protected by the Constitution and a variety of laws. In reality, such rights are subject to the whims of untouchable, faceless officials and land barons. The so-called ‘public participation process,’ usually offered as justification, is fiction.
Given that the DA is in political control of ward 97, having sought election on the promise to ensure transparency and defend individual rights, I’ve addressed a documented request to the DA’s provincial leader to act on behalf of ward residents, as follows:
1. Arrange a public question and answer session to be addressed by the ward representative, relevant municipal officials and applicant land owners, regarding construction proposed on Lot 974, 21 Almond Road and Lot 970, 29 Almond Road.
2. Obtain and provide copies of the adverts published, announcing the applications to rezone Lots 974 and 970 and provide written proof, with addresses, that all affected parties were properly notified.
3. Provide details of all objections received by the municipality in respect of Lot 970 and 974 and written responses to such objections.
4. Obtain and provide construction drawings, showing dimensions and elevations, of buildings proposed to be constructed on Lots 974 and 970.
5. Identify all applicant land owners involved and provide due diligence assessments in respect of each.
6. Provide independently verified environmental, road safety, storm water and sewerage reticulation assessments in respect of Lot 974 and Lot 970.
7. Invite the chairman of the Municipal Planning Tribunal to explain to residents the questionable approval of the application to rezone Lot 974, as set out in the rezoning Decision Notice dated 10 February 2016.
8. Adding to the concern are questions of irregularity within the eThekwini Municipality’s town planning sphere. Update residents as to the current status of the commission of enquiry into town planning matters in eThekwini, called for by ‘Advocates for Transformation’ earlier this year.
Suburbanites are generally hard working, law-abiding citizens, ordinary decent folk, raising families, paying bonds for years, and a core of stability within communities throughout the land. Surely the DA would regard it an honour to protect and defend the rights of the good citizens of ward 97, by every means?
JEFF VAN BELKUM
