Erf 431 continues
……….. herewith my response to Ed Hill
Mr Ed Hill’s response to my letter concerning the disposal of public erf 431 is appreciated but it fails to shed light on the mystery and is misleading in certain respects.
Council did not sell erf 431 in 2001. They accepted an Offer to Purchase subject to conditions to be fulfilled in 240 days, failing which the sub-lease agreement of the erf would remain in force. Despite a time extension to 728 days until 31 December 2003, with or without Council’s consent, the offer fell through as the major shareholder of the company holding the lease was unable to cede and transfer its rights in lease and development to a Cape Town based company in November 2003. Consequently, erf 431 was not sold by December 2003 . The bank approved new shareholders and bonds on title and lease in 2004. The Municipality issued instructions to proceed with transfer in 2005. On what basis? Despite a formal request to the Municipality for documentation relating to a new agreement between the current major shareholder-developer to negate the story told by the Municipal files, none has been forthcoming and the public is still in the dark. Surely it is not possible to consolidate private land with public land held by lease for the development of privately owned residential units? Was 431 sold to the current developer or was it given to him?
The ‘back of building’ effect is no justification for support of a revised development concept by Town Planning as it was not relevant to SDP 2. The shops did not back onto Pledge but were on the walkway and presented Pledge with the opportunity of leasing one of the two shops facing onto the Reserve as a refreshment and information centre. This SDP also had residential units overlooking the Reserve as an aid to security. Mr Hill’s arguments are irrelevant and no justification for separating the Reserve from the hub of public activity by a flatland development, on erven zoned for business, in a 3rd SDP applying for a departure from the zoning scheme parameter as well as a departure from the height restriction (12 m is allowed for business, 10 for residential)
In his comment for the Mayoral Committee meeting of 20 July 2006 Mr Hill refers to SDP 2 submitted in August 2005. “The surrounding owners , including Pledge Nature Reserve, were notified of the amended SDP in September 2005 and no objections were received…. In March 2006 the consultants indicated that a new proposal would be submitted. The current proposal…was submitted in May 2006. (SDP3). The comment does not point out that neighbours were not informed of the change of concept or what the implications are for the public and Pledge Nature Reserve.
Mr Hill lists the conditions for approval of the SDP3 development, none of which have been met by the developer He also applies Pledge’s approval of SDP 2 of 18 April 2006 to the altered SDP3 submitted in May 2006. In law. an Agreement requires consensus between parties. The Municipality is happy to accept the fact that the developer will not make himself available for a round table discussion. Mr Hill’s response was the longest made to date but fails to address the core issue that is at the root of the problem, the disposal of erf 431in 2004 and the consequent stance of the Municipality and the developer whose actions and attitudes create the impression that the latter is the legal owner of erf 431, acquired with public knowledge in competition with other interested parties in Knysna ( including Pledge Nature Reserve which, as a legal entity, can purchase property) If this is the case, all the Municipality needs to do is come up with acceptable documentation. If not, the answers lie with the Municipality, their attorneys and the developer and can be found in the months between January and June 2004.
Jill Dempere