Business and property owners in Olifantsfontein have obtained an urgent interim interdict stopping the relocation of 68 families from the nearby L&J informal settlement to a piece of land adjacent to their properties, arguing the move would be unlawful.
The Gauteng High Court granted the order after finding that the proposed relocation had not yet complied with key planning, environmental and land-use laws, and warned that the move could negatively affect surrounding commercial operations.
The relocation was being considered by the cities of Ekurhuleni and Tshwane after power utility Eskom said some households living above its infrastructure would need to move to allow upgrades to proceed.
However, neighbouring businesses approached the court to say the relocation should be halted until the necessary statutory approvals and processes were complete.
The business owners purchased the commercial and industrial properties in Clayville Township, located next to the proposed relocation site on Portion 83 of the farm Olifantsfontein, in 2011 for R54,500,000.
During the court hearing, Judge Shanaaz Mia heard that the L&J settlement now consisted of about 3,000 households and stretched across the municipal boundaries of Ekurhuleni and Tshwane.
“Eskom intends upgrading the infrastructure affecting at least 68 residents within the L&J settlement. It requires the relocation of the households located on the Sterkfontein property. The municipality does not have alternative land available to relocate the residents of the L & J settlement. It held discussions with the developers, who made the relocation site available for relocation purposes,” read the court papers.
However, the business and property owners argued that preparatory work had already begun at the relocation site without compliance with planning, environmental and building legislation.
Both Tshwane and Ekurhuleni municipalities conceded that the developers needed to comply with the law, as they could not relocate people without statutory compliance, as that would amount to an unlawful relocation.
Mia agreed that the matter was urgent as the business owners highlighed how the process to relocate residents had already commenced.
“The applicant fears that upon establishment of the informal settlement on the relocation site, it will be difficult to restore the status quo, particularly where vulnerable occupiers are involved.
“The harm would be effectively irreversible in relation to their interests and income. I am satisfied that the matter is urgent,” she said.
They also argued that no building approvals had been secured by the developers to be able to build structures to relocate the families.
“They [applicants] contend that no lawful rezoning, environmental authorisation and building approvals have been secured, nor was there a public participation process conducted. The relocation site is still zoned as agricultural and the respondents have not provided evidence of approved land use change, environmental authorisation or building plan approval,” read the judgment.
The applicants said relocating the families could harm their businesses and livelihoods if the informal settlement did not receive proper services.
“The relocation will have practical operational and commercial impact on the adjacent commercial businesses where the relocation is not properly planned and managed and is not compliant with the applicable laws.
“An unplanned relocation without the proper services in place to service the relocation site will result in a deterioration of the area and impact the applicants’ businesses, where it relies on rental income from tenants,” argued the applicants.
The order prohibits the municipalities from facilitating or permitting the relocation of residents to the site.
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.