Wilderness wall tests legal boundaries
An extensive boundary wall (on erf 19/158) in Wilderness Heights, erected without municipal building plans, has the Wilderness and Lakes Environmental Action Forum (Waleaf) up in arms.
The fact that an application has subsequently been submitted to the George Municipality to approve a departure in terms of the height restrictions of the wall that was erected without approval, is “ridiculous”, says Waleaf secretary Charles Scott.
George Municipality confirmed that the application has been submitted and the public has until 20 July to comment.
Scott says, “It seems ridiculous to solicit comment on the height of a wall when the wall itself has no planning approvals that we are aware of. This sends the wrong message to the public and creates a rather dubious impression of the local authorities.”
The wall encircles almost the entire three-hectare property.
Scott says any development on the property should also have been regulated by the Outeniqua Sensitive Coastal Act (Osca) and the issuance of the relevant permits prior to any development. Waleaf is of the opinion that impenetrable barriers of any sort should be limited to the proximity of buildings on the smallholdings and not around the entire perimeter of properties.
Says Mike Leggatt, a Wilderness Heights resident: “Wilderness Heights has seen significant development in the recent past and many locals are concerned about the lack of law enforcement in the Planning Department. Of particular concern is the issue of perimeter fencing, and more recently, the erection of solid and impenetrable walls. These walls fundamentally change the sense of place of the area.” He says ignoring the visions for the future set out in local policy documents “sets a precedent based on a development that has no municipal approval.”
According to Delia Power, George Municipality’s acting director of Planning and Development, the municipality became aware of the illegal wall after being alerted by a neighbouring property owner in August last year. A notice was immediately issued to the owner, demanding of the offender to rectify the contravention. “Rectify can mean to either remove or demolish the illegal structure or to submit application in an attempt to legalise the structure,” says Power. “The municipality may not refuse a land owner the right to submit an application.”
A building plan was subsequently submitted, but it was discovered that the wall was in conflict with the zoning scheme by-law and the owner also had to submit an application for departure before further consideration would be given to the building plan.
Power confirmed that the wall is also in breach of the Osca regulations, but says if required, further litigation in terms of the National Building Regulations and the Osca regulations can only start once a decision on the land use application has been taken.