Council report on Currie Road a ‘secret’

Picture: Tania Broughton

Picture: Tania Broughton

Published Feb 11, 2016

Share

Durban - The city has investigated allegations that some officials were complicit in the unlawful approvals given to the controversial Currie Road development, but it is refusing to give the report to the man who initiated the probe.

Advocate Tayob “Pops” Aboobaker – who lives next door to the R60 million development at 317 Currie Road – says as the complainant and affected ratepayer, he is entitled to the report compiled by the city’s integrity and investigations unit at his request.

“The failure to release it is of great concern. One would expect transparency and accountability from a responsible municipality.

“Under scrutiny are highly controversial, some would call idiotic, decisions. It must come clean,” he said.

Aboobaker and fellow neighbours took legal action, challenging the city’s decision to rezone the site from GR1 to GR5, which permitted the construction of what they said was a “monstrous” nine-storey building with no front, side or rear spacing, which blocked their views and towered over their properties.

The developers, Serengeti Rise, claimed to have all the necessary approvals, but the city belatedly conceded that the rezoning had been approved in error because neighbours had not been properly notified, as was required by law.

Last June, Durban High Court Judge Esther Steyn ordered the partial demolition of the building so it complied with an original plan submitted on the GR 1 zone for a four-storey building with the usual footprint restrictions.

Her ruling is being appealed against by Serengeti and the city, but the record has still not been filed with the Supreme Court of Appeal and no date has been set for hearing.

Access to the building has been boarded up and there has been no further construction.

Aboobaker said the judge had confined herself to the breach of legalities, but the affidavits and records used in the matter showed a prima facie case that there was a “cosy relationship” between the city and the developer.

In his complaint to the city, he cited various “indulges” as being:

- Why no remedial action was taken when a senior technical planner raised the alarm in April 2010 that certain neighbours had not been told of the rezoning application and that it might need to be readvertised.

- How the municipality issued a demolition order in respect of the former dwelling on the property – which was more than 60 years old – without heritage protection body Amafa’s approval.

- Why, when the residents cried foul and went to court, the municipality did not co-operate by providing information and documentation relating to the development which allowed the developer to continue building.

- Why the council defended the application and continued to fight in court when it was supposed to be a neutral party.

Aboobaker lodged his complaint early last year and city officials did a site inspection in March.

According to documents seen by The Mercury, unit head Mbuso Ngcobo assured him the unit had the powers to investigate “and recommend what we believe to be appropriation action”.

Aboobaker followed up with dozens of e-mails requesting feedback. In one he says: “As a complainant I am entitled to the report … If you leave it with senior management (to decide on its release), who knows whether I will be alive before it is made available”.

Finally, on December 15, he was advised by Ngcobo that the report had been finalised and given to the city manager.

The city insisted that now it was part of its records and Aboobaker had to make an application in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, which he strongly objected to but did on December 23 last year.

The stipulated 30-day period came and went and the city asked for an extension “for consultation with the legal division”, and later for time to consult senior counsel to determine how to deal with his request.

Aboobaker told The Mercury: “I don’t know why this report is causing so much consternation. I do not want to have to litigate further over this. If the report finds blame, then the ratepayers have a right to know. If it points to innocence, I would think it would have been released long ago.”

The city did not respond to a request for comment.

The Mercury

Related Topics: