MPT South Western

Resolution details

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY

a. That the Subdivision of Erf 541 Schaapkraal into 1 portion and a Remainder in terms of section 42(d) of the MPBL BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the MPBL.

b. That the Rezoning of portion 1 (mentioned above) from Agricultural Use Zone to Transport Zone 2 (Public Road) in terms of section 42(a) of the MPBL BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the MPBL.

c. That the Subdivision of Erf 578 Schaapkraal into 3 portions and a remainder in terms of section 42(d) of the MPBL BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98 (c) of the MPBL.

d. That the Rezoning of Portion 1 and 2 (created by 8.3 above) from Agricultural Use Zone to Transport Zone 2 (Public Road) in terms of section 42(a) of the MPBL BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the MPBL.

e. That the Rezoning of Portion 3 and the Remainder (created by 8.3 above) from Agricultural Use Zone to Local Business Use Zone 2 (LB2) in terms of section 42(a) of the MPBL BE REFUSED in terms of Section 98(c) of the MPBL.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The MPT REFUSED the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposal lacks spatial logic as this is an isolated ad hoc development which is not integrated with the surrounding developments or land use.
2. The Development principles contained in Section 7 of SPLUMA and the Land Use Planning principles contained in Section 59 of LUPA with particular reference to spatial justice, spatial efficiency and spatial sustainability are not complied with.
3. The development does not satisfy the threshold requirements of the desirability criteria listed in Section 99 in the Municipal Planning By-Law, with respect to location, impact on surrounding properties, (i.e. compatibility) impact on existing rights and concomitant social-economic impact.
4. The MPT does not have any assurance that this development will not have a further negative impact on the aquifer.
5. The members are of the view that the preservation of the agricultural integrity of the site and area is paramount to not only employment creation but also the sustainability of agriculture in the Philippi Horticulture Area.
6. Besides the proposal not satisfying planning and land use management principles and criteria, the treatment of the application as a rezoning to Local Business 2 is also regarded as being an inappropriate zoning category for the scale of development being proposed.

FOR INFORMATION:
ACTION: M COLLISON / A MCCANN