MOSSEL BAY MUNICIPALITY MUNISIPALITEIT Office of the Municipal Manager: Kantoor van die Munisipale Bestuurder: Marsh Street 101 Marshstraat 101 MOSSEL BAY MOSSELBAAI 6500 6500 18 October 2018 18 Oktober 2018 TO: All members of the Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal AAN: Alle lede van die Eden Gemeenskaplike Munisipale Beplanningstribunaal Presiding Officer/Voorsittende Beampte: P Louw Panel Members/Paneellede: J Eastes S Carstens Alternative Members: E Vreken EDEN JOINT MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL MOSSEL BAY MUNICIPALITY EDEN GEMEENSKAPLIKE BEPLANNINGSTRIBUNAAL MOSSELBAAI MUNISIPALITEIT Notice is given that a meeting of the Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal, Mossel Bay Municipality, will be held in the Committee Room, 4 th Floor, Montagu Place Building, 111 Montagu Street, Mossel Bay on 1 November 2018 at 10:00. Kennis geskied dat ‘n vergadering van die Eden Gemeenskaplike Munisipale Beplanningstribunaal, Mosselbaai Munisipaliteit, gehou sal word in die Komiteekamer, 4 de Vloer, Montagu Place Gebou, Montagustraat 111, Mosselbaai op 1 November 2018 om 10:00. H VISSER CHAIRMAN / VOORSITTER
Transcript
MOSSEL BAY
MUNICIPALITY MUNISIPALITEIT Office of the Municipal Manager: Kantoor van die Munisipale Bestuurder: Marsh Street 101 Marshstraat 101 MOSSEL BAY MOSSELBAAI 6500 6500 18 October 2018 18 Oktober 2018
TO: All members of the Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal AAN: Alle lede van die Eden Gemeenskaplike Munisipale Beplanningstribunaal Presiding Officer/Voorsittende Beampte: P Louw Panel Members/Paneellede: J Eastes S Carstens Alternative Members: E Vreken
EDEN JOINT MUNICIPAL PLANNING TRIBUNAL MOSSEL BAY MUNICIPALITY
EDEN GEMEENSKAPLIKE BEPLANNINGSTRIBUNAAL MOSSELBAAI MUNISIPALITEIT
Notice is given that a meeting of the Eden Joint
Municipal Planning Tribunal, Mossel Bay Municipality, will be held in the Committee Room, 4th Floor, Montagu Place Building, 111 Montagu Street, Mossel Bay on 1 November 2018 at 10:00.
Kennis geskied dat ‘n vergadering van die Eden
Gemeenskaplike Munisipale Beplanningstribunaal, Mosselbaai Munisipaliteit, gehou sal word in die
Komiteekamer, 4de Vloer, Montagu Place Gebou, Montagustraat 111, Mosselbaai op
1 November 2018 om 10:00.
H VISSER CHAIRMAN / VOORSITTER
ITEM AGENDA
1. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING BEVESTIGING VAN VERGADERING
2. STATEMENTS BY THE CHAIRPERSON MEDEDELINGS DEUR DIE VOORSITTER
3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION ITEMS TE BESPREKING
3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
ITEM AGENDA PAGES
3.1 APPLICATION FOR CONSENT USE IN TERMS OF THE MOSSEL BAY BY-LAW ON MUNICIPAL LAND USE PLANNING, 2015: ERF 14062, 5 DELTA STREET, MOSSEL BAY FOR A CRÈCHE
1 - 38
3.2
APPLICATION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ERVEN 3201, 16126, 19225, 19240, 20601 AND 20602, MOSSEL BAY IN TERMS OF THE MOSSEL BAY BY-LAW ON MUNICIPAL LAND USE PLANNING, 2015 (LITTLE LIGHTHOUSE)
39 - 67
3.3
APPLICATION FOR CONSENT USE IN TERMS OF THE MOSSEL BAY BY-LAW ON MUNICIPAL LAND USE PLANNING, 2015: REMAINDER ERF 2408, HARTENBOS (TO ERECT A FREESTANDING BASE TELECOMMUNICATION STATION)
68 - 103
MOSSEL BAY MUNICIPALITY Tel No: +27(44) 606 5000 P O Box 25 Fax No: +27(44) 606 5062
PART D: PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION (ATTACH MINUTES)
Has pre-application consultation been undertaken?
Y N If yes, provide a brief summary of the outcomes below.
Although the owner of the Crèche submitted a pre-application on the 18 September 2017, it was not considered necessary to have a pre-consultation with the Applicant. Only feedback was provided by the Town Planning Section of the Municipality that stipulated that there is a concern that, due to the size of the property, not enough parking can be provided on site.
PART E: LIST OF APPLICATIONS (TICK APPLICABLE)
Rezoning Permanent departure
Temporary departure
Subdivision
Extension of the validity period of an approval
Approval of an overlay zone
Consolidation Removal, suspension or amendment of restrictive conditions
Permissions in terms of the zoning scheme
Amendment, deletion or imposition of conditions in respect of existing approval
Amendment or cancellation of an approved subdivision plan
Permission in terms of a condition of approval
Determination of zoning
Closure of public place
Consent use √ Occasional use
Disestablish a home owner’s association
Rectify failure by home owner’s association to meet its obligations
Permission for the reconstruction of an existing building that constitutes a non-conforming use
PART F: APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
Application for a Consent use on Erf 14062, Mossel Bay in terms of Section 15(2)(o) of the Mossel Bay By-Law on Municipal Land Use Planning, 2015 for a Crèche.
PART G: BACKGROUND
According to the Applicant the property has been utilised as a Crèche for the past 20-years by the previous owner of the property. The current owner of the Crèche bought the property with the intention of continuing with the Crèche.
After several complaints were received from the surrounding property owners, a site inspection was conducted and a notice to cease the unauthorised land use activity was served on the owner of the Crèche on 16 March 2018 (see Annexure F).
After receiving the notice, the owner appointed the Applicant (DELplan Consulting Urban & Regional Planners) to follow the necessary steps required to legalise the unauthorised land use. The Applicant submitted another pre-application on the 13 April 2018 and feedback was provided by the Town Planning Section of the Municipality stipulating that it was already indicated in previous pre-application feedback (dated 18 September 2018) that there is a concern that the required parking cannot be provided within the boundaries of the property.
On the 8 July 2018, the Applicant addressed the concerns in the abovementioned paragraph by providing an amended site plan which was supported by the Streets and Stormwater Department of the Municipality. Subsequently, the Applicant submitted a formal land use planning application on the 18 June 2018 for a consent use in order to establish a Crèche on Erf 14062, Mossel Bay.
PART H: SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS MOTIVATION
The applicant states that the Crèche remained a favourable feeding school for Park Primary and Milkwood Primary School. The Crèche also serves as a Day-care and Educational Center for children between the ages of 0 and 6 years old and only operates between the hours of 6:00 and 18:00 throughout the week. Furthermore, the Applicant stated that not more than 20 children are registered at a time, or on the property at any time, as stipulated in the
3
Mossel Municipality Zoning Scheme By-Law, 2018. According to the Applicant the area is mostly associated with single residential units and higher density developments and some communal facilities such as the Provincial Hospital located to the east of the property. Due to the property’s location, the daily commuters of neighbouring residential areas can easily access the Crèche and also Louis Fourie Road. Access will be from Delta Street. The property provides two parking bays for the Crèche, two parking bays for the dwelling house component and a stop & drop facility. The proposal therefore adheres to all the parameters associated with a Crèche on “Single Residential Zone I”, as stipulated in the Mossel Municipality Zoning Scheme By-Law, 2018 (see Annexure B: Site Development Plan). The Applicant concludes by stating within the Motivation Report that the existing Crèche provides a necessary communal facility to residents and the facility complements the character of the area through sustainable techniques and designs. Applicant’s motivation attached as Annexure C.
PART I: ADVERTISEMENT
Methods of advertising Date published Closing date for comments
Press Y N N/A
Gazette Y N N/A
Notices Y N N/A 29 June 2018 29 July 2018
Ward Councillor Y N N/A 29 June 2018 29 July 2018
Site notice Y N N/A
Community organisation(s)
Y N N/A
Public meeting Y N N/A
Third parties Y N N/A
Other Y N If yes, specify
Total valid objections 3 Total comments and petitions refused
0
Valid petition(s) in support Y N If yes, number of signatures
Community organisation(s) response
Y N N/A Ward councillor response Y N N/A
Total letters of support 0
Was public participation undertaken in accordance with Section 45- 49 of the Mossel Bay By-law on Municipal Land Use Planning
Y N
PART J: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The application was sent to the Ward Councillor for comments and his response was that the Crèche has been around for approximately 20 years and the fact that there is an issue now, is perplexing. The following objections were received:
• Mr & Ms Dearham (property owner of Erf 14063, Mossel Bay).
• Mr Wesley Dearham (Related to Mr & Ms Dearham the property owner of Erf 14063, Mossel Bay).
• Mr Rossouw (property owner of Erf 14061, Mossel Bay). The objections can be summarised as follow:
4
• That the current residential area does not have any business rights and that the Municipality confirmed that this area does not have business rights.
• That the streets consist of 13 dwelling units and some of the residents are retired or work night shift and need to rest. However, this is impossible due to noise created by the Crèche. In some cases, the residents should increase the volume of the TV in order to hear something on the TV.
• That a retirement village is locate behind the Crèche and the noise pollution is not fair to the elderly residents.
• That in several cases the parents of the Crèche park in front of the house/gate or driveways. In two cases, the objector needed to contact the traffic department in order to ask the parents to move their cars away in order enter the property. The traffic department was contacted because the objector’s father is critically ill and if medical services is needed, it will be difficult with the amount of traffic generated by the Crèche.
• That the driveways of the objectors are used to turn around and the driveways are being damaged in the process.
• That it is difficult to go to work or home in the mornings and afternoons due to parents dropping and picking up their children. The Objector states that the number of vehicles moving within the road, it is clear that the number of children is absolutely not between 8 and 12 children.
• When parent meetings are held the parents park where they can find space and they do not consider the owners of the surrounding properties.
• The Objector also states that Delta Street is a Cul de Sac and does not follow through. This makes it difficult to handle the number of residents as well as the Crèche. The problem also increases with the amount of traffic generated by 11th, 12th and 21st Avenue which is used to transport children/individuals to Park Primary, Point High School, Little Light House Preschool and the Provincial Hospital.
• The Applicant states that he/she wishes to start a Crèche but in reality, would like to start a Pre-School and this will only magnify the current problem. According to the Objector this was verified by the Applicant when she told them that her goal is to have 4 teachers and she will be the Principal.
• According to the Objector the Applicant informed them that she currently has 40 children, whereof 12 are babies. Therefore, not as indicate by the applicant which states 12 children which is allowed.
• With 40 vehicles waiting to drop of children it will not only take a few minutes, which means that the it will look like a drive trough such as Mc Donalds, KFC were vehicles wait to be served and this will take place in front of the Objectors’ house.
• That the property does not have efficient space for a play area. The one Objector states that the Crèche’s toys are located against his/her wall which is a nuisance. The Objector also stipulate that the playground is proposed to be moved to the rear of the property however, there is already a wendy house, Jo-Jo tank, palm trees and rabbits located at the rear of the property which will not provide sufficient space for the children to play.
• That the Objector states that his/her application for a small business was rejected by the Municipality since insufficient parking space could not be provided and that the Municipality will not support rezoning within a residential area. In addition, the Objector states that a lady who sold sweets and cooldrink two houses away, was asked by the Municipality to stop her business after two weeks.
• The Objectors claim that the owner of the Crèche has threatened Ms Rossouw and themselves by stating that she will let farm workers move to the property.
• That the value of houses will be degraded if the Crèche permanently locates on the property.
• The proposed Crèche will impede on the privacy of the surrounding property owners.
• That the boundary fence between the Objector and Crèche has been demolished by the children. See attached copy of the objections: Annexure D.
5
PART K: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM ORGANS OF STATE AND/OR MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS
Name Date received Summary of comments
Recommendation
Mossel Bay Municipality: Street and Stormwater
4 July 2018
That the drop and pick up of children should take place on site. That no delay may be caused to the normal road users, due to the proposed Crèche
Positive Negative Comment
Mossel Bay Municipality: Waste Management Department
4 July 2018
Refuse collection must meet the satisfaction of the Director: Community Services. That the Eden District Municipality Health Department must be contacted for comments (It should be noted that the application was sent to the relevant department by the applicant, however no comments were obtained within the prescribed 60 days comment period).
Positive Negative Comment
PART L: SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REPLY TO COMMENTS
The Applicant’s response to the objections can be summarised as follow:
• The statement which stipulated that current residential area does not have any business rights is correct, but the Mossel Bay Municipality Integrated Zoning Scheme By-Law, 2018 provides provision for a Crèche as a secondary right (consent use) on a residential property and an owner needs to apply to obtain the consent.
• The Applicant does not understand what the relevance of the statement is that Delta Street has 13 houses and some of the residents are police officers. Furthermore, that if Delta Street was a through street it would have created much more traffic.
• According to the Applicant the Crèche does not generate enough traffic to affect the street negatively. The Municipality’s Traffic Engineer confirmed that the proposed development is in line with the Master Plan of Mossel Bay.
• According to the Applicant the owner made the following statement: “we are aware of our neighbour’s situation and do not block or use her driveway. We have a parents evening once a year and one parent made the mistake of parking in her driveway. We removed the car immediately and we make sure her driveway is always open and no one parks there.”
• That the proposed stop & drop facility would ensure that parents can safely drop off their children and quickly exit the property and street. According to the Applicant, the owner indicated that the parents’ drop-off and fetch their children at different times and there are not more than 3 vehicles at a time in front of the subject property.
• It was also indicated by the Applicant that the drop-off times are between 6:50 and 8:30 am till 9am. The Crèche’s normal pick-up times is at 2:00 pm and two children are collected at 12pm. According to the Applicant the aftercare children go home between 4:00 -5:30 pm.
6
• The applicant stipulate that the traffic will not be negatively affected by the Crèche. The applicant also indicated that the Objector does not live on the corner of 11th and 12th Avenue, but on Erf 14063, Mossel Bay directly east of the subject property and therefore the applicant disputes this objection and argue that the traffic will not affect the Objector’s property in any way.
• The objection that stated that there is not enough parking for 40 vehicles at the property. The Applicant indicated that they dispute this matter as the Crèche does not generate this number of vehicles.
• According to the Applicant there is no regulations to restrict the number of schools within a neighbourhood. It should be remembered that the application is for a consent use for a Crèche and not a school. The applicant also stipulates that within the Motivational Report it was mentioned that the Crèche serves as a Day-care and Educational Center for children between the ages of 0 and 6 years old. Hence, it can be argued that the Objector statement does not have any merit to this application.
• The Applicant stipulated that Mossel Bay Municipality Integrated Zoning Scheme By-Law, 2018 provides for a Day-care, Pre-school, Playgroup or After-school Care Services for children within the definition. Hence, the objection does not hold any merit as the land use application is in line with the last-mentioned Scheme.
• The statement made by the Objectors that it is a dream of the owner to have her own school with 4 teachers is mere speculation and therefore does not hold any merit.
• The owner informed the Applicant that their play hours are between 8:00-08:30 and then 10:00-1100 in the summer and they do not go outside in the winter days. The After-care children play outside from 3:30pm to 4pm and is supervised at all times.
• The owner also stated that when the children are inside the Crèche no noise can be heard and the Crèche is closed on weekends.
• The owner stipulated that if everything goes as plan the owner will be clearing the entire back section including wendy house etc, in order to make space for the outside playground.
• The Applicant was also informed by the owner that they have not had any complaints the past 5 years. However, when the surrounding property owners was informed that she wishes to purchase the Crèche the owner received a threatening letter from Mrs Rossouw stating that if she does not build a wall between them they will make sure to close them down. The owner indicated that she will build the wall when she obtains the relevant rights for the Crèche. The owner also stated that the other owner wishes to purchase the property for her son and hence the objection.
• The Applicant responded to the Objector’s statement that she wanted to start a small business by stipulating that the application is for a consent use and not a rezoning for a business and therefore do not hold any relevance to the application.
• According to the Applicant the owner made the statement that Mrs Dearham bought her property/house knowing that the Crèche was there all those years ago and never had any complaints about the Crèche back then until now.
• The old age home is not located behind the property and they were also part of the public participation process, however did not have any objection against the application.
• The Applicant disputes the statement that the owner has no respect for the surrounding property owners and stipulated that the owner has been nothing but respectful and accommodating to all the neighbours.
• According to the Applicant there is no substantial evidence that a Crèche can degrade a property’s value and that the Crèche can promote the residential environment to potential buyers as new residents can utilise the property.
7
See attached copy of the Applicant’s response to the objections: Annexure E.
PART M: MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT OF COMMENTS
The objections were adequately addressed by the Applicant. It is clear that most of the objections received were focused on the noise and traffic generated by the Crèche. The Applicant adequately addressed these concerns since the noise can be reduced by erecting a wall between the neighbouring properties and by keeping within the stipulated playing hours. The traffic problems generated by the Crèche is addressed by providing the prescribed off-street parking as stipulated by the Mossel Bay Municipality Integrated Zoning Scheme By-Law, 2018. Furthermore, the Crèche has been operating for the past 20 years and complaints were only received during the time that a new owner operated the Crèche and therefore it can be said that the use of the property for a Crèche is not the main concern. The new owner most probably changed the operation of the Crèche and possibly increased the number of children. Therefore, if approved, conditions of approval can be added to limit the number of children registered at the Crèche, to regulate outside play hours and to stipulate that the required on-site parking should be provided. By adhering to these conditions, the Crèche should not have a negative impact on the surrounding property owners.
PART N: MUNICIPAL PLANNING EVALUATION (REFER TO RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GUIDELINE)
Was the application processed correctly (if no, elaborate below): Y N
Is the proposal consistent with the principles referred to in chapter 2 of SPLUMA and Chapter VI of LUPA? (can be elaborated further below)
Y N
Application history
The property has been utilised as a Crèche for the past 20-years by the previous owner of the property. Thereafter, the current owner bought the property with the intention of continuing with current Crèche. However, complaints were received from surrounding property owners and the owner of the Crèche was informed that the rights are not in place. After a notice to cease the unauthorised land use the owner of the Crèche started with the process to legalise the Crèche. The applicant submitted a formal application on the 18 June 2018 for a consent use in order to establish a Crèche on the subject property.
(In)consistency with the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act 16 of 2013) Spatial Justice: The principle of spatial justice deals with redressing the imbalances of the past regarding access and use of land using various Policy Instruments dealing with Spatial Planning and Land Use Management. Therefore, the application is in line with this principle since addressing the need for job opportunities and access to basic social facilities in close proximity. Principle of Spatial Sustainability: The application is supported by the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework, 2013 and Mossel Bay Local Municipal Spatial Development Framework, 2018. The Crèche will also assist the daily commuters within the residential area to access the facility. Principle of efficiency: The application will attract local residents that will have a positive financial outcome and make use of existing local resources and contribute to specialised skills within the municipal area. Spatial Resilience: The proposal is in line within the various Spatial Plan and Policies. The application also complies with the requirement of the Mossel Bay Municipality By-Law on Municipal Land Use Planning (2015). Principle of Good Administration: The public participation process was carried out where all adjoining neighbours and affected parties were provided an opportunity to provide comments. This allowed for the Land Use Application to be processed and finalised as all necessary information was available to make informed decisions.
(In)consistency with the principles referred to in Chapter Vl of the Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of 2014) The application is consistent with the principles referred to in Chapter Vl of the Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of 2014).
8
(In)consistency with the IDP/Various levels of SDF’s/Applicable policies The Crèche is consistent with Mossel Bay Municipal SDF as the subject property is located within the urban edge and expansion of community facilities can be seen as the most consistent aspect, since the Crèche provides a social facility within a close proximity for the residential neighbourhood.
The Crèche is also consistent with the IDP which promotes urban restructuring and supports economic development and employment opportunities.
It is therefore justifiable to allow a Crèche on the property given the provisions of the Mossel Bay Municipal SDF, IDP and since the Crèche has been in operation for the past 20 years without any complaints, therefore in keeping with the character of the area.
(In)consistency with guidelines prepared by the Provincial Minister N/A
Impact on Municipal engineering services The existing municipal services will not be significantly affected by the proposed consent use for a Crèche.
Outcomes of investigations/applications i.t.o other legislation N/A
Existing and proposed zoning comparisons and considerations The primary use of the property will remain “Single Residential Zone I” for the living accommodation of a single family.
The only changes are to legalise the current Crèche on the property which will have a limit of 20 children at a time.
Sufficient onsite parking as well as the required stop & drop facility is provided accordance with the Mossel Bay
The desirability of the proposal The application is in line with the character of the area, since the primary use will remain residential. Furthermore, the Crèche promotes a much-needed facility within Mossel Bay, since facilities such as these play a crucial part in a community to adhere to their needs. The Crèche also addresses the core goals of the SDF as well as the IDP of job creation and close proximity to social facilities and therefore it is clear that the Crèche is seen as desirable.
PART O: ADDITIONAL PLANNING EVALUATION FOR REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS
The financial or other value of the rights N/A
The personal benefits which will accrue to the holder of rights and/or to the person seeking the removal N/A
The social benefit of the restrictive condition remaining in place, and/or being removed/amended N/A
Will the removal, suspension or amendment completely remove all rights enjoyed by the beneficiary or only some of those rights N/A
PART P: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
The application complies to the Mossel Bay Municipality Integrated Zoning Scheme By-Law, 2018 development parameters for a Crèche, since sufficient onsite parking and a stop & drop facility is provided on the property. The application is also in line with the SDF and IDP and all other relevant legislation. The Crèche provides a necessary facility for residents. The applicant adequately addressed all the objections that was received from the surrounding property owners.
9
PART Q: DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
COMMENTS: MUNICIPAL MANAGER No further comments. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SERVICES No further comments. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING Recommendation is supported. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES Recommendation is supported. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES No further comments. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES Recommendation is supported. COMMENTS: LEGAL SERVICES No further comments.
PART R: RECOMMENDATION
That the following recommendation be made to the Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal: 1. That the Consent use on Erf 14062, Mossel Bay in terms of Section 15(2)(o) of the Mossel Bay By-Law on
Municipal Land Use Planning, 2015, in order to operate a Crèche, be approved, in terms of Section 60 of the said By-Law.
2. That the approval above is subject to the following conditions imposed in terms of Section 66 of the said
legislation: 2.1 That no more than 20 children may be registered at a time, or on the property at any time.
2.2 That all parking and stop & drop facility should be provided on site to the satisfaction of the Director:
Planning and Integrated Services.
2.3 That no delay may be caused to the normal road users at any time.
2.4 That the rates and service charges be levied on the basis of the approval of the consent, according to business tariffs as approved on the operating budget.
2.5 That building plans be submitted for approval.
2.6 That the conditions of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, 1977 (Act 103 of
1977) be met at all times.
2.7 That signage must comply with the Municipality’s Regulation regarding Outdoor Advertising and Signage.
2.8 That this approval does not exempt the Applicant to comply with any applicable laws and/or
procedures applicable to the proposed use.
2.9 That a refuse collection must meet the satisfaction of the Director: Community Services.
10
2.10 That no parent meetings may take place on Erf 14062, Mossel Bay.
2.11 That no parent or visitor of the Crèche may park in front of any surrounding property owners’
property.
2.12 That the play times will be limited to one and half hours in the mornings and one and half hour in the afternoons and may not take place between 11am and 2pm.
2.13 That a boundary wall of 2,1 meter should be built between Erven 14061 and 14062, Mossel Bay in
order to reduce the noise pollution created by the Crèche and that the all cost should be for the Applicant.
2.14 That the Owner/Applicant approach the Municipality to conduct a site inspection in order to verify that
all changes, as indicated on the Site Development Plan number 18-18/18M dated 28 March 2018, are implemented.
PART S: REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
• The Crèche has been in operation for the past 20-years without any complaints.
• Sufficient on-site parking can be provided as indicated in the Site Development Plan.
• By limiting the number of children to only 20 children, the number of vehicles will be reduced and therefore not have a negative impact on the traffic in the area.
• Measures will be put in place, as stipulated in the conditions of approval, to minimise noise.
• The application is consistent with the SDF and IDP.
• That the objections received not be upheld due to the abovementioned reasons.
PART T: ANNEXURES
Annexure A Locality Plan Annexure B Site Development Plan Annexure C Applicant’s motivation Annexure D Objections Annexure E Applicant’s response to objections Annexure F Notice to cease unauthorised land use dated 16 March 2018
PART U: SIGNATURES
Registered planner name: Ruan le Roux Registered planner signature: _
SACPLAN registration number: A/2669/2018 Date: 10 October 2018
Decision maker: Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal
APPROVED APPROVED
CONDITIONALLY APPROVED IN PART REFUSED
Date: 1 November 2018
11
12
ANNEXURE B
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ANNEXURE C
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
MOSSEL BAY MUNICIPALITY Tel No: +27(44) 606 5000 P O Box 25 Fax No: +27(44) 606 5062
Is the applicant authorised to submit this application
Y N
Registered owner(s) KG Dorward Properties CC
PART C: PROPERTY DETAILS
Property description (in accordance with Title Deed)
Erf 3201, Mossel Bay Erf 16126, Mossel Bay Erf 19225, Mossel Bay Erf 19240, Mossel Bay Erf 20601, Mossel Bay Erf 20602, Mossel Bay
Physical address c/o 11 and 21st Avenue Town/City Mossel Bay
Current zoning
Erf 3201, Mossel Bay: Community Zone I (Place of instruction) Erf 16126, Mossel Bay: Community Zone I (Place of instruction) Erf 19225, Mossel Bay: Community Zone I (Place of instruction) Erf 19240, Mossel Bay: Community Zone I (Place of instruction)
Erf 20601, Mossel Bay: Community Zone I (Place of instruction) Erf 20602, Mossel Bay: Community Zone I (Place of instruction)
Erf 20601 (1554m²) Erf 20602 (1121m²)
Applicable zoning scheme
Mossel Bay Municipality Integrated Zoning Scheme By-law, 2018
Current land use Place of instruction Title Deed number & date
Erf 3201, Mossel Bay (T73613/2014) Erf 16125, Mossel Bay (T7837/2014) Erf 19225, Mossel Bay (T62182/2014) Erf 19240, Mossel Bay (T1968/2011) Erf 20601, Mossel Bay (T19285/2017) Erf 20602, Mossel Bay (T22057/2017)
Any restrictive title conditions applicable
Y N If Yes, list condition number(s)
Any third party conditions applicable?
Y N If Yes, specify
Any unauthorised land use/building work
Y N If Yes, specify
PART D: PRE-APPLICATON CONSULTATION (ATTACH MINUTES)
Has pre-application consultation been undertaken?
Y N If yes, provide a brief summary of the outcomes below.
PART E: LIST OF APPLICATIONS (TICK APPLICABLE)
Rezoning Permanent departure
Temporary departure
Subdivision
Extension of the validity period of an approval
Approval of an overlay zone
Consolidation √
Removal, suspension or amendment of restrictive conditions
Permissions in terms of the zoning scheme
Amendment, deletion or imposition of conditions in respect of existing approval
Amendment or cancellation of an approved subdivision plan
Permission in terms of a condition of approval
Determination of zoning
Closure of public place
Consent use Occasional use
Disestablish a home owner’s association
Rectify failure by home owner’s association to meet its obligations
Permission for the reconstruction of an existing building that constitutes a non-conforming use
41
PART F: APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
Consolidation of Erven 3201, 16126, 19225, 19240, 20601 & 20602, Mossel Bay in terms of Section 15(2)(e) of the Mossel Bay By-Law on Municipal Land Use Planning, 2015.
PART G: BACKGROUND
The Applicant submitted the application for the consolidation of the subject properties, however Erf 20602, Mossel Bay was zoned as “Single Residential Zone I” and all the other properties were zoned “Community Zone I” (Place of Instruction). The Applicant was informed that a rezoning application is required to rezone Erf 20602, Mossel Bay from “Single Residential Zone I” to “Community Zone I” prior to the consideration of the application for consolidation. Marike Vreken Town Planners submitted an application for the rezoning of Erf 20602, Mossel Bay from ‘Single Residential Zone I” to “Community Zone I” which was approved under Resolution DP16-05/2018 (see decision letter dated 7 May 2018 attached as Annexure E). The Applicant however submitted an appeal to omit Condition 5.1 of approval which stated that the entire Little Lighthouse Pre-School will be limited to a Pre-school up to Grade R. The appeal to omit Condition 5.1 was rejected under Resolution PI73-08/2018, however the condition was amended to include a combined Pre-school and Primary School facility (see decision letter dated 27 August 2018 attached as Annexure F). Once the Land Use Application and Appeal Process of Erf 20602, Mossel Bay was finalised, the application for the consolidation of the subject properties could be finalised. It should be noted that when the rezoning of Erven 3201, 16126, 19225, 19240 & 20601, Mossel Bay from “Single Residential Zone” to “Special Zone: Education” were approved under Resolution TT86-11/2015, a condition of approval, namely; Condition 1.3 was added that the erven should be consolidated to create one cadastral land unit (see decision letter dated 30 November 2015 attached as Annexure G). The Applicant did submit an appeal against conditions of approval including the condition that the property should be consolidated. It was resolved under Resolution A1-02/2016 that Condition 1.3 be amended to read as follows: “That Erven 3201, 16126, 19225, 19240 & 20601, Mossel Bay should be notarrially tied before building plans are submitted for approval.” (see decision letter dated 11 February 2016 attached as Annexure H). The Applicant made no mention of this condition of approval. Fortunately, the condition did not make provision for the newly rezoned Erf 20602, Mossel Bay and by adding Erf 20602, Mossel Bay to the proposed consolidation, it is not in conflict with the previous condition of approval which was amended during an Appeal Process.
PART H: SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS MOTIVATION
According to the Applicant the consolidation of all six erven will make extensions of the facilities possible, as well as alleviate and enhance entrance, exit and parking facilities (see attached Annexure D: Applicant’s motivation).
PART I: ADVERTISEMENT
Methods of advertising Date published Closing date for comments
Press Y N N/A
Gazette Y N N/A
Notices Y N N/A 18 April 2017 18 May 2017
Ward Councillor Y N N/A
Site notice Y N N/A
Community organisation(s)
Y N N/A
Public meeting Y N N/A
Third parties Y N N/A
Other Y N If yes, specify
42
Total valid comments 1 Total comments and petitions refused
0
Valid petition(s) Y N If yes, number of signatures
Community organisation(s) response
Y N N/A Ward councillor response Y N N/A
Total letters of support 0
Was public participation undertaken in accordance with sections 45- 49 of the Mossel Bay By-law on Municipal Land Use Planning
Y N
PART J: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Only one objection was received on 15 May 2017 from NJ Lodewyks, property owner of Erf 3205, Mossel Bay. The main concern from NJ Lodewyks’ s objection is regarding the inclusion of Erven 3201 and 20602, Mossel Bay. According to the Objector Little Lighthouse started as departures on two properties and has developed into a full-fledged school which has an impact on traffic and creates parking problems. The Objector also mentioned that the same conditions as stipulated for the approval of the departures, cannot apply to the expansion of Little Lighthouse. (See attached Annexure I: Copy of objection).
PART K: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM ORGANS OF STATE AND/OR MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS
Name Date received Summary of comments
Recommendation
Mossel Bay Municipality: Street and Storm Water Department
3 October 2018
“Die terrein ontwikkelingsplan moet opgradeer word. Dit is nie ‘n ware weergawe van wat tans op die terrein is nie”
Positive Negative Comment
PART L: SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REPLY TO COMMENTS
According to the Applicant the high quality of education that is offered at Little Lighthouse resulted in an unforeseen growth of the school. The school did start off with a temporary departure approval. Thereafter the Municipality granted approval for the rezoning of the subject properties. New conditions of approval were imposed during the rezoning process. The parking is provided in line with an approved Site Development Plan and in accordance with the recommendations of the Traffic Impact Assessment. (See attached Annexure J: Applicant’s response to the objection).
PART M: MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT OF COMMENTS
The objection against the consolidation was mainly focussed on the concern that the Little Lighthouse is expanding, however it should be noted that the Objector did not submit an objection against the rezoning of Erf 20602, Mossel Bay. All the properties which are being consolidated are already zoned for Place of Instruction with a departure approval for 0m building lines where the abutting properties have similar educational zonings.
PART N: MUNICIPAL PLANNING EVALUATION (REFER TO RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GUIDELINE)
Was the application processed correctly (if no, elaborate below): Y N
Is the proposal consistent with the principles referred to in chapter 2 of SPLUMA and Chapter VI of LUPA? (can be elaborated further below)
Y N
Application history See Part G: Background
43
(In)consistency with the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act 16 of 2013) The proposal is consistent with the development principles as stipulated in the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act 16 of 2013). This is only an application for consolidation. The subject properties are already zoned for a Place of Instruction.
(In)consistency with the principles referred to in Chapter Vl of the Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of 2014) The proposal is consistent with the development principles referred to in Chapter Vl of the Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of 2014). This is only an application for consolidation. The subject properties are already zoned for a Place of Instruction.
(In)consistency with the IDP/Various levels of SDF’s/Applicable policies N/A
(In)consistency with guidelines prepared by the Provincial Minister N/A
Impact on Municipal engineering services Adequate municipal engineering services exists.
Outcomes of investigations/applications i.t.o other legislation N/A
Existing and proposed zoning comparisons and considerations N/A
The desirability of the proposal The consolidation of the subject properties will allow for proper planning and development of the facility as a whole. Currently the facility is scattered over several properties.
PART O: ADDITIONAL PLANNING EVALUATION FOR REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS
The financial or other value of the rights N/A
The personal benefits which will accrue to the holder of rights and/or to the person seeking the removal N/A
The social benefit of the restrictive condition remaining in place, and/or being removed/amended N/A
Will the removal, suspension or amendment completely remove all rights enjoyed by the beneficiary or only some of those rights N/A
PART P: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
The character of the area will not change by consolidating properties which are already zoned for Place of Instruction. The proposed consolidation will not have an impact on views since approval was also already obtained to have 0m building lines where the abutting properties have similar educational zonings. The consolidation of the properties will enable proper functioning of the facility as a whole.
44
PART Q: DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
COMMENTS: MUNICIPAL MANAGER No further comments. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SERVICES No further comments. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING Recommendation is supported. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES Recommendation is supported. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES No further comments. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES Recommendation is supported. COMMENTS: LEGAL SERVICES No further comments.
PART R: RECOMMENDATION
That the following recommendation be made to the Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal: 1. That the application for consolidation of Erven 3201, 16126, 19225, 19240, 20601 & 20602, Mossel Bay in
terms of Section 15(2)(e) of the Mossel Bay By-Law on Municipal Land Use Planning, 2015, be approved in terms of Section 60 of the said By-Law.
2. That the approval above is subject to the following conditions imposed in terms of Section 66 of the said
legislation:
Site Development Plan: 2.1 That an updated detailed Site Development Plan (SDP) on an acceptable scale, be submitted for
approval by the Director: Planning and Integrated Services before any building plans can be
considered.
Development contributions & Services: 2.2 That the necessary development contributions for the total development be paid prior to approval of
any building plans.
2.3 That the Applicant/Owner appoint a consulting engineer to provide a comparison between the load on municipal engineering services of six “Single Residential Zone I” erven versus the consolidated “Community Zone I” erf.
2.4 That the findings from 2.4 above be submitted to the Director: Planning and Integrated Services to
calculate the development contributions payable by the Applicant/Owner.
2.5 That no structures may be erected over municipal infrastructure and any relocation of existing services will be for the account of the Developer.
45
2.6 That, if any future expansion of services is required, it would be at the expense of the Developer and will comply with the requirements of the Director: Technical Services and the Director: Planning and Integrated Services.
General: 2.7 That all costs related to the consolidation be for the account of the developer.
2.8 That the Municipality be provided, free of charge, with the Surveyor General diagrams upon
registration of the consolidation.
2.9 That this approval does not exempt the Applicant to comply with any applicable laws and/or procedures applicable to the use of the properties.
PART S: REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Reasons for recommendation as follows: 1. The character of the area will not change by consolidating properties which are already zoned for Place of
Instruction.
2. The proposed consolidation will not have an impact on views since approval was also already obtained to have 0m building lines where the abutting properties have similar educational zonings.
3. The consolidation of the properties will enable proper functioning of the facility as a whole. That the objection received not be upheld due to the abovementioned reasons.
PART T: ANNEXURES
Annexure A Locality Plan Annexure B Consolidation Plan Annexure C Sie Development Plan Annexure D Applicants motivation Annexure E Resolution DP16-05/2018 Annexure F Resolution PI73-08/2018 Annexure G Resolution TT86-11/2015 Annexure H Resolution A1-02/2016 Annexure I Copy of the objection Annexure J Applicant’s response to the objection
PART U: SIGNATURES
Registered planner name: Olga Louw Registered planner signature:
SACPLAN registration number: A/1431/2011 Date: 10 October 2018
Decision maker: Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal
APPROVED APPROVED
CONDITIONALLY APPROVED IN PART REFUSED
Date: 1 November 2018
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
MOSSEL BAY MUNICIPALITY Tel No: +27(44) 606 5000 P O Box 25 Fax No: +27(44) 606 5062
Consolidation Removal, suspension or amendment of restrictive conditions
Permissions in terms of the zoning scheme
Amendment, deletion or imposition of conditions in respect of existing approval
Amendment or cancellation of an approved subdivision plan
Permission in terms of a condition of approval
Determination of zoning
Closure of public place
Consent use √ Occasional use
Disestablish a home owner’s association
Rectify failure by home owner’s association to meet its obligations
Permission for the reconstruction of an existing building that constitutes a non-conforming use
PART F: APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
Application for Consent use on Erf 2408, Hartenbos in terms of Section 15(2)(o) of the Mossel Bay By-Law on Municipal Land Use Planning, 2015 for the purpose of erecting a 15m Freestanding Base Telecommunication Station.
PART G: BACKGROUND
Erf 2408, Hartenbos is currently zoned as “Community Zone II” in terms of the Mossel Bay Municipality Integrated Zoning Scheme By-Law, 2018, with Place of Worship as a primary use right and a Freestanding Base Telecommunication Station (FSBTS) can be permitted as a consent use.
PART H: SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS MOTIVATION
According to the Applicant the proposal will be greatly beneficial for the local businesses and residents of Hartenbos as well as surrounding communities and commuters. An improvement of network provision and coverage will be experienced. Louis Fourie Road (R102) is located to the north and the N2 National Road is located to the west of the property. The land uses in the area are predominantly residential and there is a church situated on the adjacent property to the east. According to the Applicant the location for telecommunication infrastructure are primarily chosen within areas where a need exists for coverage. There are however other determining factors including altitude, zoning and visual impact. The distance away from existing base stations in the surrounding area is also considered when a location for a new FSBTS is chosen. The FSBTS consist of the following components: 15m monopole type mast, 2 x 6-sector antennas attached to the mast, microwave dishes attached to the mast, 4 equipment containers and a 2,4m high palisade fence. The total ground coverage of the FSBTS is 80.75m². Access will be obtained from Witteboom Street, which is the existing entrance on the southern side of the property. Electricity will be obtained from the available on-site electrical supply to the property. Applicant’s Motivation attached as Annexure C.
70
PART I: ADVERTISEMENT
Methods of advertising Date published Closing date for comments
Press Y N N/A
Gazette Y N N/A
Notices Y N N/A 4 June 2018 4 July 2018
Ward Councillor Y N N/A
Site notice Y N N/A
Community organisation(s)
Y N N/A
Public meeting Y N N/A
Third parties Y N N/A
Other Y N If yes, specify
Total valid comments 1 Total comments and petitions refused
0
Valid petition(s) in support Y N If yes, number of signatures
0
Community organisation(s) response
Y N N/A Ward councillor response Y N N/A
Total letters of support 0
Was public participation undertaken in accordance with Section 45- 49 of the Mossel Bay By-law on Municipal Land Use Planning
Y N
PART J: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
One objection was received from ST Schoeman from Tertius Schoeman Attorneys on behalf of Villa Rhus Home Owners Association and the reason for the objection is due to health concerns for surrounding property owners (The Villa Rhus group housing complex is situated directly south of the property). See attached copy of the objections: Annexure D.
PART K: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM ORGANS OF STATE AND/OR MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS
Name Date received Summary of comments
Recommendation
Department of Transport and Public Works (see attached Annexure F)
19 June 2018
No objection. Comments from SANRAL should be obtained.
Positive Negative Comment
SANRAL (see attached Annexure G)
7 September 2018 Supported with conditions.
Positive Negative Comment
Mossel Bay Municipality: Electrical Services
26 June 2018 No objection. Positive Negative Comment
Mossel Bay Municipality: Water and Sanitation
27 June 2018 No municipal water and sewage infrastructure is affected.
Positive Negative Comment
Mossel Bay Municipality: Street and Stormwater
3 March 2018 No objection.
Positive Negative Comment
PART L: SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S REPLY TO COMMENTS
According to the Applicant current research on Telecommunication Base Stations has reached a point whereby scientists are satisfied that the base stations do not pose a health threat. The Applicant further states that the proposal will not be in violation of any individual’s constitutional right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or general wellbeing. The Applicant indicated that a condition of approval may be added that should it be proven that there are negative health effects from base stations in accordance with specific guidelines and this base station falls within those guidelines, it will be rectified or if possible, be decommissioned. See attached copy of the objections: Annexure D.
71
PART M: MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT OF COMMENTS
The objection was adequately addressed by the Applicant. There are no studies that confirm that FSBTS poses a health risk.
PART N: MUNICIPAL PLANNING EVALUATION (REFER TO RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS GUIDELINE)
Was the application processed correctly (if no, elaborate below): Y N
Is the proposal consistent with the principles referred to in chapter 2 of SPLUMA and Chapter VI of LUPA? (can be elaborated further below)
Y N
Application history The Applicant identified the subject property for a proposed FSBTS and submitted an application for a consent use.
(In)consistency with the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act 16 of 2013) The application can be considered to be consistent with the provisions of SPLUMA. Spatial Justice: This refer to the fair and equally distributed services and enhanced accessibility of these services. The Applicant stated that the aim of this proposal is to provide excellent communication service to the inhabitants of an area. Principle of Spatial Sustainability: According to the Applicant the enhancement of signal in an area will promote all three dimensions of sustainability (economic, social and environmental facets). Economically, businesses in the area will benefit from enhanced connectivity. The social facet is addressed as more people will have access to emergency services (e.g. healthcare, Police, Fire response etc.). The third dimension (Environmental facets) will be promoted as the sensible placement of Telecommunication Base Stations and the possibility of co-location will limit the amount of base stations should there be sufficient signal in an area. Principle of efficiency: According to the applicant the FSTBS is placed in an area optimally situated between planned and existing stations with a reason. Various factors (e.g. number of users, quality of services etc.) when considering placement in order to promote effectiveness and is not merely placed by random. Spatial Resilience: The Applicant stipulated that if economic or environmental shocks should take place communication plays an integral role in a societal environment. Principle of Good Administration: The Applicant stated that the installation will be lawful and reasonable. The public participation process was completed to allow for a process where the views and opinions of all relevant parties are taken into consideration.
(In)consistency with the principles referred to in Chapter Vl of the Land Use Planning Act, 2014 (Act 3 of 2014) The application can be considered to be consistent with the principles referred to in LUPA.
(In)consistency with the IDP/Various levels of SDF’s/Applicable policies A need exists for communication infrastructure to enhance the functioning of towns.
(In)consistency with guidelines prepared by the Provincial Minister N/A
Impact on Municipal engineering services Sufficient municipal engineering services exist to accommodate the proposal.
Outcomes of investigations/applications i.t.o other legislation The Applicant stated that the proposal does not constitute a listed activity in terms of the relevant environmental legislation.
72
Existing and proposed zoning comparisons and considerations No change in zoning is proposed.
The desirability of the proposal Regarding need and desirability, the Applicant indicated that technology (mobile devices) has become essential in enhancing or improving the standard of living as more and more households and businesses relies on telecommunication infrastructure. The majority of residents have a desire for enhanced telecommunication services to improve reception for their mobile devices and obtain faster speeds for internet connections and downloads, however no one wants to live close to or drive past these unattractive masts. The predicament is that a choice should be made between attractive towns or more efficiently functioning towns. The application is considered desirable in terms of adhering to the community’s needs for telecommunication services however more effort should be done to make the masts more appealing. If approved, conditions will be added to landscape the area surrounding the base station and to erect a tree structure type mast in an attempt to make the mast more attractive considering that it will be highly visible along Louis Fourie Road when entering Hartenbos from the north.
PART O: ADDITIONAL PLANNING EVALUATION FOR REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS
The financial or other value of the rights N/A
The personal benefits which will accrue to the holder of rights and/or to the person seeking the removal N/A
The social benefit of the restrictive condition remaining in place, and/or being removed/amended N/A
Will the removal, suspension or amendment completely remove all rights enjoyed by the beneficiary or only some of those rights N/A
PART P: SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
The proposal will provide an essential service to the surrounding community, businesses and commuters.
PART Q: DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
COMMENTS: MUNICIPAL MANAGER Refer back as requested by Legal Services. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR FINANCIAL SERVICES No further comments. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING Recommendation is supported. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES No further comments. COMMENTS: DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES No further comments.
73
COMMENTS: DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES Recommendation is supported. COMMENTS: LEGAL SERVICES This item should be referred back pending clarity with regard to the use of consent as to telecom stations and is not supported.
PART R: RECOMMENDATION
That the following recommendation be made to the Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal: 1. That the application for a consent use on Erf 2408, Hartenbos in terms of Section 15(2)(o) of the Mossel Bay
By-Law on Municipal Land Use Planning, 2015 for the purpose of erecting a 15m Freestanding Base Telecommunication Station, be approved.
CONDITIONS
2. That the approval above is subject to the following conditions imposed in terms of Section 66 of the said
legislation:
2.1 That a tree structure type mast must be erected.
2.2 That building plans be submitted to the Municipality for consideration and be approved before
commencement of the construction of the Freestanding Base Telecommunication Station.
2.3 That landscaping should be done around the fence which encloses the Freestanding Base
Telecommunication Station and the equipment containers.
2.4 That maintenance and upkeep of the structure and landscaping should be done on a regular basis.
2.5 That should there be scientific evidence that prove that telecommunication infrastructure poses a
risk to the residents and surrounding property owners, the Municipality reserve a right to reconsider
its position in relation to telecommunication infrastructure.
2.6 That this approval will expire when the telecommunication infrastructure is no longer used for the
intended purpose and that all telecommunication infrastructure should be removed from the
property.
2.7 That it should be indicated on the building plans that approval will expire when the
telecommunication infrastructure is no longer used for the intended purpose.
2.8 That the conditions as stipulated in the letter from SANRAL (ref: W11/5/3-2/6-53) dated 7 September
2018, be adhered to.
2.9 That this approval does not exempt the Applicant from compliance with any other relevant legislation
and/or procedures applicable to the proposed use.
PART S: REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
1. An essential service is provided to the surrounding community, businesses and commuters. 2. There is no evidence that suggests that Freestanding Base Telecommunication Stations have adverse
health risks on the general public.
74
PART T: ANNEXURES
Annexure A Locality Plan Annexure B Layout Plan Annexure C Applicant’s motivation Annexure D Objection Annexure E Applicant’s response to objection Annexure F Comments from Department of Transport and Public Works Annexure G Comments from SANRAL
PART U: SIGNATURES
Registered planner name: Olga Louw Registered planner signature:
SACPLAN registration number: A/1431/2011 Date: 10 October 2018
Decision maker: Eden Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal
