Skip to content

Search

Menu

Subcouncil resolution details

Subcouncil resolution details

Subcouncil 20

Agenda item no

20SUB 13/2/2019

Subject

MATTERS RECEIVING ATTENTION

Meeting date

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Resolution

Not available

Date closed

Not available

Resolution details

MATTERS RECEIVING ATTENTION

1. Information Required on the Status of Rental Stock and Problems in Ward 72

Report on Agenda, refer to the In-Committee Agenda.

Noted

2. Summary Minute of the Site Meeting held in Monty Road, Southfield and 10 Avenue, Fairways on 14 June 2018

Mr Richard White, Subcouncil Manager, reported that a survey was conducted in 2014 and there was pedestrian movement at that stage. The Department was of the view that another pedestrian survey was unnecessary as there are pedestrians still using the road. This amounted to wasteful expenditure, therefore the Department refused to support the request for the road closure.

Cllr Southgate referred to the recent site visit where the community pointed out the problem occupant on the corner of Monty Road and Prince George Drive, blaming him for all their problems. At a recent Diep River CPF meeting, he enquired whether any complaints had been received about the aforementioned occupant. He was informed that the occupant on the corner plot has never been a problem. The information provided by the community was therefore factually incorrect.

He also drew attention to the fact that for many years when enquiring about the status of the plot, the Department advised that the owner could not be traced. In one visit, it was established that the person living in the caravan all these years, is the actual owner. Since all the roleplayers have now been identified, he was positive that the necessary compliance notices could now be served on the owner.

Cllr Southgate also reported that the vegetation was obstructive on the sidewalk, he took City Parks to the site and requested that they clear the overhanging branches etc.

Mr White enquired on the way forward with regards to the closure of Monty Road.

Cllr Southgate stated that the information has been provided on why Monty Road could not be closed and it will have to be conveyed to the community.

RESOLVED

1. Subcouncil 20 notes the feedback provided regarding the closure of Monty
Road.

2. Subcouncil 20 notes that the community be informed about the reasons for not closing Monty Road, Southfield.

Action: Richard White

3. Progress and Findings on Leak Detection Carried Out in Area South Including Spring Water and Other Water Saving Initiatives

Mr Richard White, Subcouncil Manager, informed the meeting that this matter has been concluded. An email was circulated to Councillors regarding the visual aids and listening devices.

Noted

4. Presentation: The Fire Service and its Functions

Mr Richard White, Subcouncil Manager, reported that Fire Services served notices in Ebor Road, Wynberg and that there were still some cases of non-compliance. This was being addressed by Problem Buildings.

Noted

5. Presentation: Congestion on M3 Freeway

Presentation due for the March Subcouncil Meeting.

Cllr Brunette requested that the Directorate be changed from “Transport & Urban Development Authority” to “Transport” in light of the restructuring of Directorates.

Resolved

Subcouncil 20 notes the request for the amendment of the Directorate to “Transport”.

Action: Brigitte Francis

6. Request for In-Principle Approval for Disposal of Erf 13087, Constantia for the Development of the Residential Estate

Mr Richard White, Subcouncil Manager, reported that he was informed by Human Settlements via email of the following:

• The subject property seemed too far removed from public transport interchanges and routes.
• The terrain appeared problematic in the sense that it was steep and rocky with stormwater run-off.
• Access would be a problem.
• The proposed and desired density and built form would be restricted within this residential environment.
• Although the official was not familiar with the location, it was not ideal for social housing as it needed to be “well located”, however, it could be a site for alternative housing, namely, GAP housing.
• The existing zoning is “open space” and will require a lengthy town planning and full environmental process.

The Chairperson requested that the email be circulated to all Councillors.

Resolved

a) Subcouncil 20 notes the feedback provided by Human Settlements.

b) Subcouncil 20 requests that the email from Human Settlements be circulated to all Councillors.

c) Subcouncil 20 supports that the item remains on the MRA Report.

Action: Richard White & Siwakhile Mba

7. Progress Report on Retreat PTI

Mr Richard White, Subcouncil Manager, reported that due to various stakeholder
engagement, a presentation or report could be expected in April 2019.

Negotiations are at a sensitive stage.

Noted

8. Annual Report on Health Services Provided at Clinics in Subcouncil 20

Report due in August 2019.

Noted

9. Motion of Exigency: Problem Building 37 5th Road, Heathfield (Erf 80517) – Submitted by Cllr Kevin Southgate

Mr Richard White, Subcouncil Manager, reported that photographic evidence was sent to Legal Services who in turn referred the matter to the Master of the High Court.

Cllr Southgate advised that he was requested to provide evidence, he supplied
the media publication, updated photographs as well as the initial photographic evidence. Based on this he requested a progress report for the next Subcouncil meeting.

He requested that the address be corrected to 37 5th Road, Heathfield.

Resolved to Recommend

a) Subcouncil 20 notes the feedback on the Problem Building at 37 5th Road, Heathfield.

b) Subcouncil 20 notes the request for a progress report for the March 2019 Subcouncil Meeting.

c) Subcouncil 20 notes the amendment to the correct address, 37 5th Road, Heathfield

Action: Richard White

10. Staffing Complement at Wynberg Law Enforcement Office

Mr Shaun Smith and Mr Wayne Petersen represented Law Enforcement as Mr Ian Schnettler was unable to be present, due to attending The Mayor’s Bosberaad.

Mr Petersen informed the House that the designated Law Enforcement Officers deployed to various Wards in Subcouncil 20 applied for permanent posts and had been successful, their appointment is effective 1 March 2019. Once the contracts had been signed off, he will know where they will be placed. This meant permanency, higher earnings and they would also qualify for more benefits. It was a step up in life for them.

The following questions were posed with the relevant responses:

• Cllr Bew said that Wynberg LE Office had 12 vacancies, why could the newly appointed LEO (previously the designated officers) not be based at Wynberg instead of being deployed elsewhere. She commended Insp Petersen for the work performed in Ward 73.

Response by Mr Smith: There are 76 vacancies in Law Enforcement. The Directorate has a mandate to implement 24-hour Law Enforcement teams to operate in all areas. Presently only the Rapid Response Unit and Facility Protection Officers operated on a 24-hour basis. Thirty-two inspectors have been appointed to cover all areas, each area will have a base, Cape Town and Muizenberg has thus far been identified. By 1 July 2019, the areas protected on a 24-hour basis will expand as the new Budget kicks in. The day staff will remain unchanged but the night staff will expand.

• Cllr Brunette enquired whether the night staff will be boosted on 1 July 2019 or whether there was already a unit operating. She also enquired whether the new appointments will work the night shift. She commended Insp Petersen for the work performed in Subcouncil 20.

Response by Insp Smith: One area in Beacon Valley, Mitchells Plain was already operating. Appointments are presently being made. The Inspectors are in place already. The designated LEOs will continue to operate during the day in the Ward they are being funded by and will participate in night operations when required with the permission of Insp Petersen.

• Cllr Southgate referred to a previous meeting where it was mentioned that Subcouncils seemed to be a training college for Law Enforcement. He said that since safety and security was priority in Subcouncil 20, Ward Councillors used a large portion of its Ward Allocations to fund a designated LEO for 3 years. Once they were trained and experienced they applied for other permanent posts and their departure caused instability in service delivery in a Ward. They built relationships with their fellow officers and the community. He highlighted the fact that Ward 72 in this term of office had 3 LEOs.

Cllr Southgate stated that it was good that 7 LEOs from Subcouncil 20 has thus far been appointed but it meant that Insp Petersen has to start training new personnel again. He commended Insp Petersen for the work performed in Ward 72. He also said that it would appear that the new persons would be appointed from the EPWP database. Clarity was requested on this point.

Response from Insp Smith: The EPWP appointees worked on a year to year contract for 3 years, once they reached the end of their contract, they would be unemployed and could not be re-employed again. If they got an opportunity for permanent employment, it could not be stopped as progress should be encouraged. The Officers who will be deployed to the areas are not brand new officers, they are initially ranked as Auxiliaries then they become eligible as EPWP jobseekers for Law Enforcement. The former are volunteers clocking a minimum of 16 hours a month, but they clock much more hours. There are already 534 EPWP Officers (jobseekers) working on projects such as Rail Projects, School Resource Officers and Facility Protection Officers. They progress by applying for posts and becoming learner LEOs and two years later they will be qualified LEOs. This pushed up their T levels, which allowed them to apply for supervisory positions.

• Cllr Southgate enquired whether Auxiliaries living in the Ward could be considered and given preference taking into consideration that they have a better understanding of the area. In terms of the next T Level, what was the difference in monetary terms.

Response from Insp Smith: The EPWP worker received a stipend of approximately R3 500 per fortnight and a LEO receives R7 500 with benefits such as pension, medical aid and housing benefit.

• Emanating from the above response, Cllr Southgate requested clarity on the fact that Councillors allocated R250 000 and R270 000 from Ward Allocations per LEO per financial year, yet the Subcouncil was being informed about stipends ranging from R3 500 to R7 000, how could an amount of R250 000 be accounted for or justified.

Response from Insp Smith: When officers are appointed training takes place and R35 000 to R40 000 are set aside for this purpose. All incumbents must be provided with a uniform, firearm and accessories.

The Chairperson advised that he already broached the subject with the Department and was given the run-around. He informed the House that this topic should be discussed again at a different forum because there was definitely a problem.

• Cllr Brunette questioned the status of Officer Dyanti.

Response from Insp Petersen: Officer Dyanti was now a permanent appointment and would be deployed elsewhere, someone will replace her in Ward 62.

• The Chairperson referred to page 101, querying why only 58% of funding had been spent for the LEO project in comparison to the spend in other Wards in Subcouncil 20. He requested that this be checked and the response sent to the Subcouncil Manager. He also queried project 920 (Equipment for Law Enforcement Trailers).

Response from Mr White: The funding for project 920 only became available after the approval of the Adjustment Budget in January. The funding should be spent by the end of the financial year.

• Cllr Brunette drew attention to the fact that Councillors were paying for the training of EPWP Law Enforcement Officers only to become a qualified Law Enforcement Officer.

The Chairperson stated that this training continued for 3 years and if the incumbent was not absorbed into the workforce, three years of training would be wasted.

Response from Insp Smith: Most of the EPWP Law Enforcement Officers are appointed in the City but some applied to other Municipalities (Drakenstein and Stellenbosch) and has been successful in being appointed. The City was seen as a “feeder” for other surrounding Municipalities.

Response from Insp Petersen: The project has never lost a LEO except when they resigned. They were all appointed into permanent posts.

• Cllr Southgate expressed concern because when Councillors bought into the project they were informed that it was for the employment of a Law Enforcement Officer in their respective Wards, never were they informed that this was an investment for training LEO for other Municipalities. He agreed that there needed to be progress in terms of career paths but in light of the information shared, Councillors have been misled as they were not receiving value for their money regarding the LEO being funded from Ward Allocations. He was of the opinion that the funding of LEOs should be reviewed.

The Chairperson shared this opinion including the fact that the term of employment of the LEO should be linked to that of the Ward Councillor, which is 5 years.

Response from Insp Smith: The Ward will always have an officer although it may not be the same officer. All new officers will not need training. They will learn to know the Ward during the orientation phase.

At this juncture, Mr Johan Meyer from Transport requested to elaborate on the questions raised. He explained that EPWP is an initiative from Central Government and the grants were sourced from Central Government as well. He understood that through the grants to Safety and Security, construction and other fields, grants are to be channeled to people empowering themselves to enter the formal job market.

• Cllr Southgate said that in future designated LEOs were being discussed, Councillors should requested that the LEOs are trained LEOs.

The Chairperson thanked Insp Smith and Petersen for attending the meeting and for the responses provided. He requested that they report to the Subcouncil with the unanswered questions.

Resolved to Recommend

a) Subcouncil 20 notes the contents of the verbal report.

b) Subcouncil 20 requests that cognisance be taken of the concerns raised by the Councillors.

Action: Shaun Smith, Wayne Petersen & Richard White.

You have disabled JavaScript on your browser.
Please enable it in order to use City online applications.