Durban - Residents unhappy with a new business development in their residential area would have to fork out R5 000 to lodge an appeal with the city.
This is according to a proposal put forward recently before the eThekwini Municipality’s economic development and planning committee.
The proposal drew the ire of opposition parties, which believe the 354% increase from R964 previously, is “anti-poor”.
The idea is that the increase on the appeals process would serve as a punitive measure to avoid frivolous appeals.
Commenting on the proposal, DA councillor Christopher Pappas said the tariff hike would impact seriously on residents’ ability to appeal any building or development that might affect them.
“This simply means that the city is effectively making it more difficult for you to challenge decisions that directly impact on your home or business. They are punishing poor and middle-income families and excluding us from our right to appeal and our property rights,” said Pappas, currently the Ward 31 councillor.
Ward 31 covers the Musgrave and Sydenham areas, and in recent years building developments in both areas have earned the scorn of residents.
A precedent-setting case still to be heard before the Supreme Court of Appeal this year is that of advocate Tayob Aboobaker and other residents of Currie Road. They successfully went to court to object to a neighbouring “eyesore”, R61million luxury block of flats, being erected.
Durban High Court judge Esther Steyn ruled in their favour and declared the approval by the city of the Serengeti development to be unlawful and set it aside.
The judge ruled that the almost-completed building be partly demolished, which would mean the entire building would have to come down.
Serengeti wants the decision overturned, as does the city, even though in the hearing before Steyn it conceded that the laws for giving notice to neighbours about the rezoning of the site were flouted.
Aboobaker felt this proposal was “completely wrong” because they would block the public’s right to appeal.
In Sydenham, a block of flats were leased to the Durban University of Technology and a resident, who declined to be named, said the community was told that it would be a block of flats for residents living in the area who needed homes.
“Soon thereafter, we saw busloads of students being dropped off outside what is now a student residence. This was in 2014 and three years later, the students are still here,” he said.
The residents, he said, had accepted that this was now a students’ residence, but also said they had complained for years about the buses speeding on this road and also blocking the way when parents drop off their children at the neighbouring school.
He felt the proposed tariff increase would deter people from raising their concerns about developments in their communities.
“I do not have R5 000 to go to council and appeal. How is that fair to us?” he said.
Pappas said he strongly opposed the increase because the tariff would impact heavily on the rights and ability of poor and middle income citizens to appeal decisions.
“This will affect citizens’ ability to appeal, among others, special consent applications, consent applications, subdivisions, removal of conditions, closure of roads or open spaces and zoning changes,” he said.
According to Pappas, the fact remains that those who can afford to appeal, such as the wealthy or big companies, still have the means to do so, while the average citizen will be deprived of their right.
“Arguably, the new tariff excludes the majority of eThekwini residents from property rights protected by the constitution. Developers do not have any conflicts with the appeals process.
“Their biggest concern is the lengthy time taken to get through the system in eThekwini. If that is the case then we must fix the system instead of punishing residents for the government’s failure,” said Pappas.
Amar Singh, chairperson of the Clare Estate Ratepayers Association, said it was nonsense that residents had to pay to appeal a development.
“If my neighbour wants to build a shebeen or scrapyard, I should be able to lodge an appeal with council and not have to pay for it.
“This proposal is nonsense. Appeals should be taken on merit and investigated accordingly. These people must meet with ratepayers and put this proposal before us,” he said.
Save Our Berea (SOB), a community activist group that has lodged many appeals against building developments in the Musgrave/Berea area, condemned the proposal.
SOB’s Cheryl Johnson said: “We stand most strongly against it. Once again it is the poor and the working class who will be most severely affected.
“Only rich people will be able to afford what should be a right.
“Council does not believe in the constitutional rights of the ratepayers.”