| Author |
Messages |
|
Rob Munro
Posts:27
 |
| 11/03/2008 9:31 PM |
|
The Editor
31 October 2008
Weslander Attention: Alida Buckle
BAJA SARDINIA NOW RENAMED SHARK BAY: Letter "Owners have their say"
Weslander 30 October 2008 refers
The concern of the prospective developers of Oesterwal 292 with the "facts"
is gratifying. Unfortunately their claims of "fact" thusfar have not
withstood close scrutiny both in regard to their EIA obligations and their
duty of care towards this sensitive property. They have been sent back to
the drawing board on the EIA process. Their disclaimer of responsibility for
ecological damage to the property has now also been rejected and they have
apparently been informed that the responsibility is theirs in terms of
Section 28 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and not for
the account of local ratepayers as they have attempted to claim. Their
claims regarding the certification of zoning by the municipality we believe
too are equally open to legal challenge.
They have threatened before to deny public access to Klein Oostewal beach.
Frustrated by opposition to their proposals they appear to be resorting to a
more public threat. In a fit of apparent pique they are now threatening to
close a stretch of the Park Road access to the West Coast National Park if
they do not get their way and their proposal is "compromised". The road of
course has nothing to do with the exercise of their duty of care in terms of
NEMA as they claim. If ever they were to be ill-advised enough to attempt to
carry out this threat they would make themselves legally vulnerable to
expropriation of the relevant road reserve in the public interest.
They claim that they have tried to engage the Langebaan Action Group but the
basis of these approaches has been flawed. There have been consistent
opposition and successful legal challenges to development of this land since
1984 as well as agreements that this land would be retained as a nature area
and/or incorporated into the West Coast National Park. This is part of the
public record. Their total disregard thusfar of public opinion and an
absolute refusal to entertain an agenda that includes a low key development
alternative to their proposal has frustrated discussion and constructive
resolution of the problem. There has until recently been no basis for
constructive discussion. Their latest scoping report in September 2008 does
not yet reflect a viable "no development" alternative as required by
environmental law. The only substantive option they have been prepared to
entertain is that of elite housing with ecologically unviable strips of
residual land in between. These residual and environmentally important
"corridors" they would propose to foist as "public open space" upon the
municipality which has neither the capacity nor the resources to maintain or
conserve them. The prospective developers want license to pick the eyes out
of this valuable conservation asset and to leave the residue for the account
of local ratepayers.
But there are creative alternatives and unrelenting pressure appears to have
made them increasingly receptive to at least one or two of them. We again
call on them not to try to bully and threaten this community but rather to
withdraw their current proposal and to work constructively with SANParks and
other responsible conservation agencies now engaged toward a solution that
would conserve Oostewal 292 with sustainable public access to public beach
amenities and flower areas in perpetuity as has from the start been the
intention. No-one but the developers themselves stand to gain from their
current development proposal. The entire community stands to gain from the
alternative.
Johan Ackron
Convenor: Langebaan Action Group
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|