Canoe Club

PRESS RELEASE:

August 28th 2003

The Dabulamanzi Canoe Club (Dabs) had made use of the Emmarentia Dam for training purposes for many years during which they strove to obtain permission to erect a clubhouse on the shores of the Emmarentia Dam. After lengthy negotiations with the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council (the Council) and the Emmarentia Residents' Association (ERA) agreement was finally reached in 1998 regarding a site for the clubhouse.

Before final plans could be submitted, Dabs was required to subject their proposals for the clubhouse to an Environmental Scoping Report. A consultant was appointed and public participation was called for. ERA and a number of residents in their personal capacities registered as Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs). A number of recommendations made by ERA were incorporated in the Scoping Report dated December 1999 which was ultimately submitted for approval to the Gauteng Department of Agriculture Conservation Environment and Land Affairs (GDACEL). Based on the Scoping Report, GDACEL issued a Record of Decision (RoD) and provision was made in the RoD for appeals to be lodged within 30 days.

The RoD was incorporated into a lease agreement between Dabs and the Council. At this stage ERA understood that Dabs were free to draw up plans for approval by the Council. It was further understood in terms of Clause 3 of the RoD that a copy of the plans would be made available to ERA in order to satisfy ERA that the requirements of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) were being met. This understanding was reinforced by oral undertakings by representatives of Dabs to representatives of ERA This undertaking was also confirmed in the June 2002 minutes of Dabs. These promises were not met by the time work actually commenced on the site. It should be noted that the plans were in fact available long before the date referred to above as they had been approved by the Council towards the end of 2001 as was later learnt.

Copies of the plans were eventually obtained from the Council.

On examination of the plans it became apparent that there were major deviations from the requirements of the RoD.

ERA was then advised that Dabs had, prior to the submission of its plans to Council, approached GDACEL around September 2001 with a request to review the RoD on the basis that they were not able to comply with its requirements. In particular Dabs alleged that it could not comply with the requirement in the RoD that the height of the clubhouse roof would not impede the view of the opposite shore of the dam from pedestrians. It is on record that GDACEL duly issued a Second RoD dated 28/10/2001 which cancelled many of the limitations of the original RoD (now referred to as the First RoD). In particular the sight-line for pedestrians was removed. ERA's first sight of the Second RoD was a copy faxed by GDACEL on 16 August 2002. One of the stipulations in the Second RoD was that the IAPs be advised of the Second RoD in order to appeal against it within a specified period. This requirement was not met by Dabs.

ERA duly requested Council (through a fax and telephonic communications) to declare the approved plans as having been wrongly approved by virtue of them not complying with the First RoD and the lease agreement. This request was denied by Council in a letter dated 16 August 2002.

Various informal discussions with Dabs took place with a view to resolving transgressions of the First RoD but matters remained unresolved. After further negotiations with GDACEL a meeting of was held in August 2002 attended by GDACEL, Council representatives, Dabs and ERA. At this meeting ERA was granted an extended period in which to reach a solution with Dabs or to submit its objection and appeal against the Second RoD if a satisfactory solution could not be reached.

Notwithstanding the numerous deviations from the First RoD the only issue which Dabs was ultimately required to address was the height of the roof of the clubhouse. This issue had not been resolved to the satisfaction of ERA within the extended period allocated for appeal and/or objection as granted by GDACEL. ERA accordingly submitted its appeal and objection to GDACEL on 19 September 2002. ERA was advised by DACEL that its submission required details of its objection and that these were to be submitted to the MEC (Ms Mary Metcalfe). In the course of ERA's preparation of its detailed objection ERA was led to believe by GDACEL that the details could be submitted after the objection had been lodged but when they were finally submitted, ERA's submission was turned down on the basis that the details were to have been lodged simultaneously with the objection.

ERA then advised a number of residents, who in their personal capacities had registered as IAPs (RIAPs) and who had not been afforded the opportunity to appeal against the Second RoD, that their rights had been denied and that ERA was prepared on their behalf to seek recourse. These residents duly issued a Power of Attorney to a member of the ERA executive committee (exco) and with exco authority an attorney was appointed to handle the matter. Through the attorney, expert legal advice was sought from an advocate experienced in environmental matters.

A letter was duly addressed to GDACEL in April 2003 requesting a right to appeal on behalf to the RIAPs. GDACEL responded that they were investigating the matter. Following on this, numerous faxes and telephone calls to enquire on the progress of the investigation failed to elicit a response. A visit by the attorney and ERA's representative to GDACEL's offices on 12th August gave them access to two legal representatives of GDACEL who undertook to report back on the progress of the investigations "within a week". This report has not been forthcoming.

Exco is of the opinion that :

  • · GDACEL finds itself in a situation where it has compromised its authority by not acting in terms of its RoDs and is reluctant to exercise its right to call upon Dabs to comply with its second RoD with the possibility of having to invoke the terms of its first RoD.
  • · That Dabs has acted in bad faith by misleading GDACEL into believing that it could not comply with the sightlines of the first RoD.
  • · That Dabs' failure to keep ERA informed of its plans was a further action of bad faith.
  • · Every effort should be made by ERA to seek reinstatement of the view of the opposite shore over the clubhouse . . .
    • · By means of lowering the roof level of the vestibule of the clubhouse to match the height of the roof over the main clubroom, and . . .
    • · Simultaneously raising the pavement .
  • Accordingly the executive committee has decided that a Special General Meeting of residents should be called. This meeting will be asked to decide on whether :
  • · ERA is to seek the funds for a Supreme Court injunction against GDACEL for not having acted in terms of its Second RoD, or
  • · To decide to drop the matter and accept Dabs' clubhouse as built.
  • At this meeting, ERA will put forward its argument in favour of the legal route. Any resident who wishes to oppose this argument is invited to advise the chairperson in advance so that time can be allocated at the meeting. Any resident of Emmarentia will be allowed to speak at the meeting, but in terms of the ERA Constitution only paid-up members will be allowed to vote.

-oOOo-

Should you wish to obtain more information on the above or place your name on the agenda please feel free to contact Gerald Stoch - Convenor of the Town Planning sub-committee and Deputy Chairperson of ERA

Gerald - eravalue@pixie.co.za

In anticipation of a well-attended meeting

Gemey Abrahams

Chairperson

‹ DefinitionsupAGM 2006 ›