Response to the Article in the Knysna-Plett Herald: DEVELOPER OF ERF 156 DEBUNKS‘MISCONCEPTIONS

ERF 156,  SIGNAL HILL - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Response to the Article in the Knysna-Plett Herald Friday, 30 May 2025, 18:09 titled “DEVELOPER OF ERF 156 DEBUNKS‘MISCONCEPTIONS” 

Article quote “One of the biggest misconceptions about the controversial Erf 156 on Signal Hill has been a suggestion that a portion of municipal land will be "gifted" to the new developer, as part of a rezoning application for the property.

The group is investigating buying an adjacent parcel of land from Bitou Municipality, and that "everything has been above board in the group's dealings with the relevant parties".

Response  This is a municipal assets and there is relief that it would not be “gifted” but  should there be any disposal it should be done in terms of the MFMA.

Article quote  “The land, a dead-end road, had already been approved for alienation by the municipality as it added no existing value or function for the general public and has no practical public use”.

Response  The argument that this area is of “no practical public use” is debateable as the area, or part of it, could be consolidated into the adjacent Signal Hill View site, both of which are under municipal authority, and which concept has not been considered, but must be considered by the municipality as an alternative proposal, prior to considering disposal. Also there is doubt on the validity of a 2001 resolution of the Bitou council, being the basis on which Feenstra implies that it…” had already been approved for alienation by the municipality”. Circumstances have changed in 24 years since the council resolution, with the promulgation of the  Municipal Finance Management Act (“MFMA”) in 2003 and the court order, brought by the same Bitou Municipality to demolish the structure in 2016.

Further, it is prudent that the municipality should not consider disposing of “the dead end road” as it provides the sole access to Erf 156 and if this part of the road is to be sold, it must be done by tender (MFMA). Should an unrelated third party win the tender, a complicated situation would arise whereby the owner of Erf 156 could not access its own property, thus embarrassing Council and the Municipality.

Article quote “It will not be 'gifted' to us as some members of the community have incorrectly speculated. We have committed to paying a fair market value, as assessed independently by two independent appraisers to be appointed by the municipality”,

Response This proposed sale process appears to be in contravention of the MFMA 2003,  which dictates that Municipal land needs to be adjudged of to be of no use to the municipality and then approved for sale by council and then sold by public tender. The problem with this has been alluded to above.

Article quote “We would like to reassure the community that this land situated between our erf and the public viewing platform is already visually and physically separated by existing vegetation and the hill's natural slope. Most importantly, the alienation of this road does not reduce public access or affect the function of the viewing platform in any way. The proposed development will have no impact on the view, as the company is not seeking any height departures. We have gone to great lengths to ensure we don't impede the height restrictions – even building further back into the hillside at greater costs to ourselves. The departures applied for this development relate instead to building lines and coverage only and will not at all affect the character of the Signal Hill viewpoint".

Response There  is considerable uncertainty that the proposed development would not affect the ambience of, or the view from, the View Site. Documents in the application do not demonstrate that there will be no adverse effect, and in fact there are alternative projections that indicate that the development will destroy views from the View Site to part of Central Beach and some of the sea view to the east as far as the sea level horizon. For this reason, Bitou is required to commission an independent impact assessment to assess the impact of the proposed development on the View Site. Furthermore, the proposed new building will be on the area that is currently part of Sinclair Street, which will bring development at least 30 metres, and perhaps more, closer to the View Site than is the case now, which significantly increases the risk of negative impact of the proposed development on the View Zite.

Article quote “….that the group intends not only to correct a historical wrongs, but to restore the natural beauty and prestige of Signal Hill by replacing the structure with a tasteful, high-end residential development that compliments the surrounding neighbourhood”.

Response The principal historical “wrong” is that the current illegal structure grossly transgresses building lines and permitted coverage. The development proposed in the application in fact does not correct historical wrongs but perpetuates, and expands them, by proposing similar gross transgressions of building lines and permitted coverage, now not only on Erf 156, but extends those excessive transgressions much closer to the public View Site on what is part of Sinclair Street.

The argument that the proposed development complements the surrounding neighbourhood is incorrect as most of the surrounding erven have single residences, with one exception being one with four apartments, and so a nine unit apartment development would not comply with the character of the neighbouring properties.

Article quote “We are fully committed to due process and regulatory compliance”

Response This is not correct, as regulatory compliance requires that the development is within the building lines and coverage of those stipulated in the Bitou Municipality Land Use Planning Bylaw, which, as proposed in the application, is not the case, wherein excessive departures are being sought.

Regulatory compliance also requires that the disposal of municipal properties is subject to the Municipal Finance Management Act of 2003 for which there is no acknowledgement and is not proposed in the Application, but conversely proposes an alternative process of disposal.

The due process also requires that a developer must address the points raised by the Bitou Municipality in the Pre-Application Consultation, wherein Bitou requested Feenstra to (i) “Address desirability of more than 4 units per site” and (ii) “Why departure is necessary, if design starts with a “blank canvas” after demolition”. The application ignores these requests by Bitou, which have not been addressed, or motivated for, in the application. These views expressed by the Bitou Municipality are logical and if implemented, as proposed, would simplify the process and obviate the need for transgressions of building lines and coverage excesses and also the acquisition, and consolidation, of part of Sinclair street into Erf 156.

Article quote “Plett Prime Developments has volunteered to assist Bitou Municipality by funding and executing the immediate demolition of the existing structure, "thereby saving the ratepayers millions of rands". This is on condition that there are no objections and permits have been approved and any objections raised by the community in respect of the rezoning have been settled and withdrawn”.

Response The offer to save the ratepayers millions of rands appears to be an empty undertaking as in terms of the 2016 Court Order, it is the responsibility of the owner of Erf 156 to demolish the structure or failing that, the Municipality. Whether Feenstra or the successful bidder to the Municipal tender do the demolition, it is for Feenstra’s account, as the current owner.

Further the offer is linked to withdrawal of objections, many of which relate to preserving the View Site, which is conflating two separate issues, and thus, is rejected.  At a time of unprecedented rates of development in Plett, it would be grossly irresponsible, and possibly illegal, for the municipality and Council to set a precedent by accepting a direct or indirect financial incentive offer, in exchange for the granting of departures from the terms of the Bitou Municipality Land Use Planning Bylaw, as well as acceding to intimations to manipulate or influence the results of the mandatory public participation process.  

As Feenstra has offered this irregular financial incentive publically in Knysna Plett Herald article, should members of the council and municipality approve the application, it would seriously contaminate the process and the integrity of the municipality.