Wayne Weitz, chairperson of London Village Ratepayers and Residents Association
The story “Green light for social housing” (Plainsman, August 29) refers.
We (feel the article was) in the interest of the developer, the provincial Department of Department of Human Settlements and the City of Cape Town, (that it) was not balanced (and that the) story of this development is not captured correctly because officials have not consulted in accordance to their own processes to rezone the specific property.
A ratepayers’ organisation objected against the proposed rezoning and it was ignored and in accordance with their policy, you must listen to the objector and provide sufficient reasons if not in agreement.
To add insult to injury, we as the ratepayers, have, through your article, learned that a new developer will now start with construction and not the original applicant.
As the London Village ratepayers and residents association we accept and agree, based on the documents that this rezoning happened in 2016.
As a resident of London Village for more than 25 years, I am not aware that community had been consulted on this project at all.
The absence of the ratepayers’ and residents’ association does not preclude from due process to be followed in accordance with the policies of the City of Cape Town.
We are demanding that the CoCT provide the ratepayers of London Village and the Villas with the actual documented proof that due process was followed.
We are seeking answers from the CoCT because when our initial enquiry was tabled to the sub-council chairperson Elton Jansen, and councillor Joan Woodman, neither of them could provide answers.
We met with the developer in 2017 and he never informed us that they intended to build the social gap housing on the property adjacent to the Villas and London Village.
Our residents want the developer and CoCT officials to provide us with the actual construction plans because the same developer, based on the letter provided, could not finish the first project.
Brett Herron, mayoral committee member for Transport and Urban Development, responds:
In November 2015 the City’s Development Management Department sent notices via registered mail to 133 surrounding property owners, informing them of the application for the rezoning of Erf797, at 3 Regent Street in Weltevreden Valley, to permit a block of flats to be used as a social housing development.
The notice of the application for a rezoning the erf was also advertised in the media on November 6 2015, calling on residents to comment or raise objections by December 7 that same year.
A similar notice was placed in the Provincial Gazette, and at the site itself, informing residents and interested and affected parties of the application for the rezoning of the site from Agriculture to General Residential 2 (GR 2), to permit a block of flats to be used as a social housing development. Following on from this notice period, the City’s Development Management Department received eight objections against the application. These included objections from residents of London Village and the Colville Residents’ Association.
The objections were taken into account during the City’s evaluation process of this application. The objections and the applicant’s response to the objections were included in the City’s report to the Municipal Planning Tribunal.
It is important to add that once an objection is received against a land use application (as was in this case), the Development Management officials have no delegations (thus, authority) to decide on the said application.
In these instances the officials will make a recommendation to the Municipal Planning Tribunal who is the relevant authority to decide on the application.
The Municipal Planning Tribunal subsequently approved the rezoning application on April 26 2016, and the final approval for the rezoning was issued on July 21 2016.
It is important to add that these approvals are not linked to the said developer or applicant, but to the property or the erf itself.
Thus, once a rezoning and development application have been approved, it is irrelevant which developer develop the property in the end.
All of the interested and affected parties were informed of the developer’s intention to develop this site for social housing.