Subcouncil 16

Resolution detail

15/05/17: It was noted that the applicant was inadvertently not informed of the interview held on the 19 April. The Chairperson then agreed that the applicant be allowed an interview at the next meeting on 15 May. The decision of 19 April as to this application was therefore to be reconsidered after the interview with the applicant, Ms Maryke Haywood (Hough) Messrs Raafiq Kolia and Donavon Geysman represented the Property Department. An email from Advocate Wayne Coughlan confirming the withdrawal of his objection was tabled. See Addendum A. The applicant, Mr Wynand Haywood motivated the application as per Addendum B. Cllr Stuart Diamond said that if there are any claims of alleged corruption within COCT, proof must be presented and it must be reported so that action can be taken. Cllr Shayne Ramsay stated that she is against the loss of a walk way for pedestrians. After discussion, the recommendation in the report was put to the vote by show of hands, and votes were recorded as follows: 6 – in favour of application 2 - against application. UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED: a) the recommendation for refusal made by Subcouncil 16 as to this application on 19 April 2017 be reviewed and rescinded b) to RECOMMEND that Council approve that a right to use, control or manage a municipal asset, being a portion of Public Place abutting Erf 86 Camps Bay, BE GRANTED by way of a closed tender. 19/04/17: Mr Donavon Geysman represented the Property Department. Page 317 of the report was replaced, see Addendum B. An email from Mr B Varkel omitted from the report was tabled, see Addendum C. An interview was granted for both the applicant and objectors. The objectors: 1) Mr Chris Willemse motivated his objection as per Addendum D. 2) Mr Barry Varkel motivated the objection as per Addendum E. 3) Ms Chrissie Phillips motivated her objection as per Addendum E1. Issues raised by councillors: • Timeframe was quite long before bringing the application to the Subcouncil for consideration • Why has the applicant been utilizing the property illegally for so long? • Is this property operating as a guest house? • Can anyone apply for the closed tender? • Corruption allegations by certain objectors should be reported by them to the City’s Fraud hotline or to the Speaker for investigation. Cllr Shayne Ramsay commented as follows: “This afternoon I went to inspect Erf 86 again and this time walked from the park above Camps Bay Drive across the road and down the alley ways of Hove Road, Rottingdean Lane, Rosly Lane and down to what should have been Houghton Lane, the subject of the debate, around Erf 86, across Victoria Road and down Beta Road. In a city which is becoming increasingly densified, it makes perfect sense to retain walkways that provide public access to beaches and parks through the comparative safety of pedestrian lanes. It is after all pedestrians who are more often killed on the roads than any other users.* After the comparatively quiet streets, it is ironic that it is at the busiest intersection of the suburb, that the City chooses to close the pathway. The recommendation to permanently close this path and lease it to an individual property owner serves to benefit only that individual, not the City nor the community the City is supposed to serve. It certainly is not “Better utilization of City land”! The income and maintenance is negligible, particularly when compared with the value a pathway would provide to the local community or the goodwill generated by the City in reopening the path. The owner who closed off the lane without permission and has used the property rent free (it seems), should be required to pay to reinstate and maintain the pedestrian pathway, in recompense. Having thoroughly read the document, particularly the incredibly well written letter of objection from Advocate Coughlan, I am inclined to agree with the objectors. I therefore cannot support the recommendation to lease this City land.” UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to RECOMMEND that: a) Granting of rights to use, control or manage a municipal asset by way of a closed tender of a portion of public place abutting Erf 86 Camps Bay, 11 Victoria Road, Camps Bay BE REFUSED b) the lane, portion of public place abutting Erf 86 Camps Bay, be reinstated by the applicant c) adjoining owners should maintain the lane d) if maintenance of the lane is not done, the application for a closed tender be reconsidered after one year. NOTE: After the meeting it was established that an incorrect person was mistaken for the applicant. Consequently, the latter was inadvertently not informed of the interview. The Chairperson then agreed that the applicant be allowed an interview at the next meeting on 15 May. The decision as to this application will therefore be reconsidered after the interview with the applicant, Ms Maryke Haywood (Hough).