Makana Municipality’s permit to develop a bus terminus and public toilets at the intersection of High Street and Bathurst Street may be invalid.
In November last year, the Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (ECPHRA) informed the municipality that their application for a development permit for the bus terminus and toilet block had not been approved.
Makana Municipality’s permit to develop a bus terminus and public toilets at the intersection of High Street and Bathurst Street may be invalid.
In November last year, the Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (ECPHRA) informed the municipality that their application for a development permit for the bus terminus and toilet block had not been approved.
The reason which ECPHRA gave the municipality for not approving the development was that the “the current proposal is not suitable due to the sensitivity of the proposed site and the negative impact on the heritage precinct surrounded by the Commemoration Church, Observatory Museum, the restored Lewis store and the War Memorial”.
The municipality was advised in this letter to consider alternative sites such as the defunct railway station building or within the vicinity of Market Square.
However, the municipality then reapplied for a permit which was granted on 16 February this year. Jock McConnachie, a member of the Commemoration Methodist Church property trust committee, says, “The second permit is legally invalid as the municipality should have gone through a proper appeal process in order to reverse the decision,” and that any subsequent decision by an ECPHRA permit committee is “invalid in terms of ECPHRA’s own regulations”.
According to the National Heritage Resources Act 25, in terms of appeals, anybody wishing to appeal against a decision of the SAHRA (South African Heritage Resources Agency) Council or the council of a provincial heritage resources authority must notify the Minister or MEC in writing within 30 days.
The Minister or MEC shall then appoint an independent tribunal, consisting of three experts with expertise regarding the matter.
Makana spokesperson Thandy Matebese said the municipality “did not appeal, we re-submitted an application for a permit because the reason the initial permit was rejected was that the municipality did not include an environmental impact study and this was included in the second application”.
ECPHRA chairperson Cameron Dokoda said if a permit was turned down then that entity was supposed to go through an appeal process.
“If we [the new councillors]were aware of this, we would have advised the municipality to go through this process. “At the moment the permit is still valid up until we decide otherwise.
We are dealing with the situation. We are still busy organising a permit committee in the Cacadu district.” Dokoda said ECPHRA has had no correspondence querying the validity of the permit.
