Kleinkrantz development project: Waleaf or Waterleaf?

GARDEN ROUTE NEWS - A hefty 330-page document that voices the concerns of an environmental action group on a Kleinkrantz development project, compiled with the help of an advocate, was dismissed in council last Tuesday, 5 March, by Garden Route District Municipality (GRDM).

This document was widely distributed, among others to the Western Cape Minister of Local Government Anton Bredell, who initiated processes to have the matter assessed in accordance with the Western Cape Monitoring and Support of Municipalities Act.

99-year lease agreement

This 330-page document by the Wilderness and Lakes Environmental Action Forum (Waleaf) refers to GRDM's tender process and signing of a 99-year lease agreement with the successful candidate, a private developer, Waterleaf Properties, in regard to a residential development earmarked for Kleinkrantz near Wilderness.

George Herald previously reported on the company's site development and rezoning for an "eco estate" on a 30-hectare property (erf 1297) in Kleinkrantz that belongs to the GRDM.

When asked for comment on the allegations made in Waleaf's document, Karin van der Walt of Waterleaf Properties declined.

'No reasonable cause'

Waleaf's document is titled: "Complaints for investigation of financial misconduct/misconduct based on perceived breaches of the Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003 and/or the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000."

Detailed questions stipulating some of Waleaf's gravest concerns were sent to GRDM for comment. In their feedback this week, GRDM strategic manager Thembani Loliwe said Council resolved that there is no reasonable cause to believe that any act of financial misconduct and/or misconduct had been committed by the municipal manager, the executive manager of Planning and Economic Development, or the manager of Legal Services.

"They have subsequently dismissed the allegations and authorised the GRDM administration to continue to defend the reputation of the municipality at all costs," said Loliwe.

"The GRDM understands the importance of public scrutiny and accountability, especially in projects of significant public interest and impact. However, we also respect the legal process and must ensure that our comments do not prejudice ongoing proceedings or violate legal principles. With keeping this in mind, do take note the position of the GRDM council."

Western Cape Minister of Local Government Anton Bredell

Pre-investigation assessment

Asked about their pre-investigation assessment, Bredell said in terms of section 106 of the Systems Act, a provincial investigation must be preceded by a pre-investigation assessment, as required in terms of section 5 of the Western Cape Monitoring and Support of Municipalities Act, 2014.

"As part of the pre-investigation assessment, I am required, amongst other things, to provide the municipality in question with an opportunity to provide written representations on any allegations that are being considered for a possible investigation in terms of section 106 of the Systems Act and to then objectively assess all available information before taking a decision on the necessity for a provincial investigation," said Bredell.

Asked what his recommen-dation would be to GRDM when it comes to dealing with complaints of this nature, Bredell answered that, according to the Municipal Finance Management Act, a municipality is obliged to itself investigate allegations of financial misconduct against an official of the municipality, unless those allegations are frivolous, vexatious, speculative or obviously unfounded. "Furthermore, if the investigation warrants such a step, the municipality must institute disciplinary proceedings against such official of the municipality."

Bredell said the accounting officer, as the head of the municipality's administration, is responsible and accountable for proper and diligent compliance with the municipality's statutory obligations and its approved policies. "In addition to the above, the executive mayor together with the municipal council are obliged to take action in relation to the abovementioned, including investigating allegations and taking remedial action, where necessary."

Waleaf's concerns

Waleaf raises concerns in the document, among others, about the legality of the lease agreement between GRDM and Waterleaf Properties as well as a "rushed" tender process.

Waleaf alleges that the lease agreement that was eventually signed, was not the same version approved by Council for signature by the municipal manager. The agreement allegedly also does not comply with the requirements of National Treasury and, since it contains no clauses as to the construction standards and time frames that have to be applied, it exposes the GRDM to significant risk.

In the document, Waleaf alleges, "Instead of Waterleaf Properties being held to a contract with the GRDM as to what it had to erect, by when, and to what standards (the whole purpose of the tender), it is allowed to conceptualise its development only after the tender had purportedly been awarded. Its current designs and proposals differ materially from the purported tender the GRDM considered at the time."

Waleaf refers to "purported" tender as it alleges that the GRDM entered into a lease with an entity that did not tender, as the tender was submitted by a joint venture of three inexperienced companies that included Waterleaf Properties. "The expertise and experience of potential subcontractors as submitted by this joint venture would have been irrelevant to the tender, as no binding contracts with them have been produced to date," said Waleaf.

Waleaf also alleges that there is no record of any prescribed public participation process preceding the tender and the tender itself was not published in the local press, as the GRDM was obliged to do.

Legal process

When approached for comment on their document, Waleaf responded, "The issues raised in the comprehensive complaint go wider than a tender process and the conclusion of a lease agreement. In general, we are reluctant to answer questions about the comprehensive complaint. We did submit it in a legal process, a process we must, and do, respect.

"The main issues were previously raised with the GRDM on 18 September 2023. The lack of a satisfactory response to Waleaf's detailed concerns, as submitted then, led to the current detailed document submitted on 23 January 2024."

Transfer of ownership

Waleaf said they agree with the advice in a letter in 2019 by Minister Bredell to GRDM to transfer ownership of this and other properties to the appropriate authorities after due diligence processes to ascertain their environmental significance, and accordingly review its (Council's) intentions to safeguard these environmental assets against any detrimental impacts.

SANParks has previously expressed interest in acquiring erf 1297. It has also aired concern over the impact of the proposed development and has pointed out that this is one of the last natural corridors between the lakes system and the coast in a densely urbanised area, and forms an important part of the overall coastal consolidation process.

A Google Earth image of erf 1297 that lies on both sides of the N2 with the former resort development in the lower right hand corner.