TygerBurger

Residents ready for appeal after filling station in D’Urbanvale approved

The filling station is planned on the vacant erven on the corner of Mosselbank River Avenue and Falcon Street — at the entrance to D'Úrbanvale from Vissershok Road, right opposite Reddam House. Photo: Google Maps
The filling station is planned on the vacant erven on the corner of Mosselbank River Avenue and Falcon Street — at the entrance to D’Úrbanvale from Vissershok Road, right opposite Reddam House. Photo: Google Maps

CAPE TOWN – D’Urbanvale residents are ready for another fight — an appeal against the City’s Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) approval for a 24/7 filling station and store on vacant erven in the area.

The application for the filling station on the corner of Mosselbank River Avenue and Falcon Street — opposite Reddam House Preparatory School — was brought by Engen Petroleum, who bought the erven in 2022 for R10,35m from the previous owner, Rosa Parks.

Unsuccessful

An application by Parks to build a shopping centre on the land, zoned for general business purposes, in May 2023, was unsuccessful after many objections by residents. Another application for a shopping centre years ago was also unsuccessful.

This approval by the tribunal came despite more than 200 objections. Thersia Smit, a resident and lawyer, prepared a presentation for the tribunal.

According to Smit, the application was approved by the MPT at its sitting last Tuesday before the meeting even started and she had the opportunity to make her presentation. The application was signed upfront by Susan Matthysen, district head of planning for Durbanville and Kraaifontein, she said. Smit said in her original objection the application process lacked adequate public participation and failed to notify all materially affected parties, including nearby residents and schools.

Process flawed

“Not only was the process flawed, but no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been conducted, despite the site’s proximity to the Uitkamp Wetland nature reserve and residential areas,” she said.

“Only 21 owners were notified, despite the development’s potential impact on a broader community, including a school and nature reserve.

“The City of Cape Town municipal planning by-law (2015) requires notice to be served on any person whose rights or legitimate expectations are materially and adversely affected. This includes parents of schoolchildren, residents near the Uitkamp Wetland nature reserve and vulnerable individuals,” Smit said in her objection letter.

It further failed to comply with the municipal planning by-law (2015), the Cape Town Spatial Development Framework (2018) and the National Environmental Management Act (Nema), she said.

READ ALSO: Fuel station planned near school, wetland in D’Urbanvale sparks uproar

Appeal

“The proposed site lies adjacent to the Uitkamp Wetland nature reserve, a formally protected area with critically endangered vegetation types and significant biodiversity. The development poses a high risk of groundwater and surface water contamination, particularly from underground fuel storage tanks,” she said.

“I am appealing their decision (to approve the development) and if ground is broken on the site before the appeal is decided, I will interdict them by urgent application to the High Court,” Smit said.

Unfair process

“The process was unfair because objections were not meaningfully engaged, reasons were conclusory and template-based and there were no rational links between evidence and outcome.

“The decision is unreasonable because it concludes ‘no harm’ despite proximity to sensitive land uses; it ignores known hazardous characteristics of fuel stations and it disregards established scientific literature on emissions and groundwater risk,” Smit said.

The decision violates environmental rights, children’s rights and administrative justice. The MPT failed to apply spatial sustainability, public interest balancing and risk-sensitive planning,” she said.

Sub judice

Eddie Andrews, the City’s deputy mayor and Mayco member for spatial planning and environment, said to TygerBurger on enquiry that as a result of the appeal against the decision, the matter is sub judice until the appeal is heard and a final decision has been made by the appeal authority.

“The City cannot comment until these processes have been concluded,” he said.

You need to be Logged In to leave a comment.

Gift this article