Municipality not following own policy

HOT TOPIC: Rezoning applications

THE Tramways building is situated on land which, according to a quick search at the Lillian Diedericks information office, is zoned industrial.

This zoning allows a broad range of land uses, but does not permit what is known as a place of assembly, that is a function hall, community hall, etc.

The relevant municipal regulations also require parking to be provided on the premises.

The existing parking seems too little to satisfy these regulations.

The Lillian Diedericks information office also pointed to the fact that no parking dispensation had been entered into on this site and no specific permission had been granted to permit the function hall.

Now although it is accepted that no parking can practically be provided on the site, the regulations require that no development may take place without parking provision or a dispensation and the function hall may not be used until the necessary planning permission is granted.

It can be assumed then that the Tramways developments do not adhere to all the necessary development regulations.

Based on this and the fact that the MBDA is for all intents and purposes just another metro department, it must be assumed that the municipality is aware of this contravention.

This is possibly why the MBDA is currently undertaking a project to create new flexible zonings for some areas in the Baakens Valley.

Recently many businesses owners throughout the city have found themselves in contravention of these very “regulations”.

In dealing with these owners the latest (“unproclaimed”) municipal “policy” is to force these businesses to stop operating entirely before the necessary development applications will even be processed.

For years, the approach followed was to allow such a business to operate until the applications had been assessed.

I acknowledge that this approach has advantages and disadvantages for both sides, but in my view was at least developmental.

There are, however, finer nuances to this, though, where for instance the “contravention” is situated in an absolutely undesirable position it would be prudent to follow a “not-so-developmental” approach.

I used the word “unproclaimed” due to the lack of communication or publicity regarding this change of approach and implementation.

The municipality has missed a great opportunity to communicate constructively with the businesses and land owners out there.

A grace period could have been created which would have facilitated self-regulation and compliance.

In my cup-half-full approach to life (which is coming under increasing pressure nowadays), I believe there would have been substantial voluntary compliance anyway.

For those who do not take up the grace opportunity the full weight of the municipal bible should justifiably be brought to bear.

Now comes the administrative fairness issue.

Will the NMBM adopt this new “no quarter given” approach when dealing with the MBDA’s building and others it is managing?

Will it be forced to cease operations before the corrective development applications will even be processed or advertised?

Or will it simply be permitted to operate while the applications are assessed?

I, by the way, am hoping for the latter. My plea is that the metro demonstrates developmental administrative fairness and for once communicates and, dare I ask it, consults openly, constructively and timeously about changes to in-house policies and approaches, which in a time when our local economy is stumbling, have a dramatic impact on people’s livelihoods and jobs.

My “half-full” hope is that the metro will deal with the rest of the business and land owners in the same lenient manner that it deals with itself (remove the log from your own eye before you address the splinter in someone else’s comes to mind).

Harry T, Port Elizabeth