Furore over Council’s ‘double standards’
Council's decision to sell a piece of land on the western side of the Kingswood Golf Development was met with criticism from opposition parties. The land, which constitutes an area of 7,3ha, will be sold by public tender. The value of the property is estimated at R4-million.
The opposition vehemently objected to the selling of the land. They queried the transparency of the process and posed the question whether the land shouldn't rather be used for agricultural or housing purposes, of which there is a huge shortage.
The on-site investigation took place on the day the [article 80] committee took their decision. It was said in the agenda that the on-site investigation already took place. This is unethical.
The item served in council for a second time last Wednesday, following an earlier application from Rundle College to purchase the property for development as a college and sports academy. An extension of the urban edge will be considered, in conjunction with the customary land use applications.
Deputy Mayor Gerrit Pretorius said the land is made available for sale, with no guarantee that the educational institution would be the successful bidder. However, opposition councillors disagree. "Rundle College submitted the application, therefore Council is acting on that specific application. George is infested with private and educational institutions," said PBI Cllr Virgill Gericke.
Gericke maintains Council has double standards and didn't show the same willingness to accommodate the Mediclinic application for land in Kraaibosch.
"I want to draw a comparison to the controversial decisions we make in council. Just a month or two ago we objected to the extension of the urban edge for a health care facility [Mediclinic]. Today, just weeks later, we come here and say we must consider the extension of the urban edge for a school or an educational institution. We rejected the application for a much needed specialised health care service."
EFF Cllr Laetitia Arries said the land should rather be used for agricultural purposes and Sac Cllr Basil Petrus asked why the land cannot be used for housing. According to the Spatial Development Framework, optimal use for this land is education. Petrus furthermore said the item was initially referred back to council to provide a complete report.
"We don't have a complete report," said Petrus. "I am going to oppose the item vehemently. The on-site investigation took place on the day the [article 80] committee took their decision. It was said in the agenda that the on-site investigation already took place. This is unethical."
Requirements needed from the successful bidder include a visual and environmental impact assessment, subdivision and rezoning of the land and the provision of internal services. Reading the recommendations of the item in council, Cllr Gert Niehaus said the Department of Agriculture must indicate if the agricultural value of the land would be affected and if an application must be submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development.