Joburg's town planning rules slammed as unworkable

The SA Property Owners' Association (Sapoa) has lashed out at the City of Johannesburg over its new town planning scheme, claiming it is unworkable, will have significant negative effects on the property industry and has ignored virtually all input from the country's property professionals.

Neil Gopal, Sapoa's chief executive, said earlier this week that a number of alarming bombshells were buried in the fine print of the initiative, the Consolidated Johannesburg Town Planning Scheme 2011, which was implemented last week.

These included an effective appropriation of rights without compensation, which arose from a clause that provided for approved rights that were not exercised within 24 months to become "null and void", he said. In addition, the municipality was not bound by its own town planning scheme.

"In short, the city implemented the scheme without the buy-in or consultation of its property owners and property developers, who are partners in the development of the city. This does not bode well and every property owner in the city, current and future, stands to suffer as a result," he said.

Gopal said Sapoa, which represented 90 percent of all commercial property owners in South Africa, and other property professionals intended to lodge an appeal against the new scheme to the Gauteng Townships Board.

Virgil James, a spokesman for the City of Johannesburg, said the council did not "bulldoze new policy or amendments to policy" in the city because this would be unfair on citizens and illegal.

He said the city ensured there was proper public participation and due consideration was given during this process to inputs, comments and objections received

The city was satisfied that the proper processes were followed and all appeals lodged with the Townships Board would be attended to, he said.

He stressed the scheme was not yet in operation and anyone who was aggrieved had 56 days from November 23, the date of publication in the Provincial Gazette, to appeal to the Townships Board.

Gopal said the intention was to combine more than a dozen different planning schemes or zoning regulations in the municipal area of Johannesburg into one set of uniform zoning provisions, without altering existing zoning or development rights attached to any particular property.

However, Sapoa claimed that instead of streamlining town planning in the city, the errors and inadequacies of the scheme were so severe that it needed to go back to the drawing board.

Gopal said Sapoa acknowledged there was a need for a town planning scheme that ensured the regulation of land was uniform and more efficient throughout the municipal area, but the new scheme did not achieve this.

He said professional and legal advice obtained by Sapoa was that it contradicted itself in many places, referred to schedules and annexures not in the document, contained an abundance of inadequate and confusing definitions and even contradicted other legislation, such as its definition of an erf, which did not conform with the Land Survey Act.

Gopal said Sapoa believed the scheme did not adequately protect existing zoning rights or deal with any unforeseen consequences and its application, particularly to undeveloped or partially developed land, resulted in a most serious inadequacy that could adversely affect the future development value of countless properties.

He said the conclusion reached by a large number of town planning professionals and practitioners was that in general the new scheme was poorly compiled and the meaning and interpretation of many provisions was impossible to understand, logically or legally.

Gopal added that three full sections were missing from the copy supplied to Sapoa and, "despite repeated efforts requesting this information, we have yet to receive it".

Get commercial property news by email

Free alerts when we publish — pick a focus or get everything, unsubscribe in one click. Subscribe »