GEORGE NEWS - In July 2020, George Herald reported on a petition by the Wilderness Ratepayers and Residents Association (WRRA) against a controversial boundary wall of a private property Wilderness Heights.
Their concern was the height of the wall which is over the maximum allowable 2,1 metres. The building of the wall contravened the fencing and zoning scheme regulations, spatial development framework (SDF) guidelines, and Osca (Outeniqua Sensitive Coastal Area) regulations.
At the time, GM confirmed that a neighbouring property owner in August 2019 alerted the municipality of the wall and a notice was issued to the owner to either remove the structure or apply for it to be legalised.
A building plan application for the wall was subsequently submitted in September 2019.
GM said it was then determined that the structure was erected in conflict with the zoning scheme bylaw and the owner was then notified in January 2020 that an application for departure was required before further consideration would be given to the building plan.
Dr Arne Witt, an environmental expert and member of Waleaf (Wilderness and Lakes Environmental Action Forum), said landowners do not understand the need for wildlife corridors and safe areas where animals can feed and breed. "The wall is a blot on the Wilderness landscape."
Another landowner in the area recently received a notice to demolish an illegal boundary wall on their property and remove the material. "Why is the illegal wall reported on two years ago still standing? It would appear that GM is very selective as to whom they take action against."
He says writing the SDF is a waste of tax payers' money if the guidelines are ignored.
'Wall was legally constructed'
Lauren Waring, director of Planning and Development, responded as follows:
Building plans for the erection of a wall of 2,1 metres have indeed been approved and records of the approved plans are indeed held with the municipality. The wall was legally constructed, however our investigations have revealed that there were some deviations from the approved plans in the sense that parts of the wall are higher than the approved structure and in some areas permeable fencing was used instead of the solid wall structure.
These deviations are being addressed and agreement will be reached on the best way to remedy it.
The matter is receiving attention, although it remains a time-consuming process. Several inspections were conducted by our Building Control, Environmental Management and Town Planning inspectors.
Our findings concluded that the impacts referred to in this complaint apply to most of the surrounding neighbours, although the complaint is silent on this. Although many of the surrounding properties are fully fenced with diamond mesh, which may not have the visual impact of a solid brick wall, the impacts on faunal migration are similar.
Creating awareness among property owners about the impacts that transformations to the landscape have on the ecological environment they live in, is essential to our efforts to conserve the wealth of biodiversity in the Wilderness landscape.
The municipality has ensured positions, dedicated to this task are filled and our efforts in this regard are being raised.
As authors of the MSDF and LSDFs (local spatial development frameworks), the municipality is acquainted with the guidelines pertaining to the erection of fences with the objective of promoting faunal migration and continuity of the biodiversity corridors.
These guidelines are not statutory and cannot be enforced unless a land development application is triggered. The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act grants authority to the MSDF as a decision-making tool in the assessment of a land development application. It is also applied as an informant in strategic planning and formulation of the by-law, the latter of which is statutory, although cannot affect rights that have accrued as a result of past approvals.
The consideration of a land development application must give regard to the rights that have accrued as a result of the building plan approval and cannot be superseded by the MSDF, hence there are in some cases exceptions.
In the case of the erection of this boundary wall, the implementation of the building plans has resulted in an Environment Conservation Act offence as the plans were approved in the absence of an Osca (Outeniqua Sensitive Coastal Areas) permit.
The permitting process cannot prevent the construction of structures that are permitted in terms of the use rights nor can it prevent the owner from securing their property for the purpose it was intended, hence the owner’s right to construct a wall cannot be denied.
The municipality's mandate does not extend to the enforcement of Nema (National Environmental Management Act), however, if the interested and affected parties are convinced that the development may have triggered an environmental impact assessment and is subject to authorisation, such an incident may be reported to the relevant provincial environmental authority.
'We bring you the latest George, Garden Route news'
