Subcouncil 12’s ongoing discussion on pedestrian lane closures revealed that lease agreements were still biggest hold-up in the process.
The matter was discussed last month at its first sitting of the year, on 22 January.
For decades Mitchells Plain communities, especially residents who next to alleys, have asked the City to close the lanes because criminals and gangsters use them as quick getaways when committing crimes.
Regional Manager Alicia Bosman reiterated the City’s policy of not moving forward with applications. “Without those numbers the Deputy Mayor cannot motivate for funding.”
Processes
Morné de Wet, a City official from Urban Mobility’s Road Infrastructure Management, supported this. “If there’s no application it can’t be determined how many lease agreements there are for doing a cost estimate.”
He added that the City had made use of leftover funding in the fencing budget to close lanes, but there was no money this year for that.
According to De Wet closing a lane means residents have to complete the lease agreements, send them to property management, who would then forward them to his department, which would request funding for the closure.
He added there was a very low percentage of lease agreements in place among the hundreds of applications for closures.
ALSO READ: Lane closures take two steps forward and one step back
Many residents do not want to enter into lease agreements and the ward councillors noted several instances where groups set out to close lanes themselves. Subcouncil chair Solomon Philander gave an example of this, one involving a neighbourhood watch in a given area, but a ruling in a previous meeting of councillors held sway; only residents whose properties abut such lanes could have lease agreements for the space.
Responding to the question from Ward 92 councillor Norman Adonis asking how lanes that are not abutted by residential properties could be closed, Bosman said neighbourhood watches or even non-government organisations could enter into lease agreements, provided they operated from the properties abutting the lanes.
Safety versus revenue
In a follow-up email, TygerBurger asked the City why a lease agreement is essential for the closing of lanes?
“In volatile areas where people cannot afford the leases there is no way the lane can be closed without a lease agreement, in this way prioritising the safety of residents rather than revenue generation for the City.”
ALSO READ: Decades-old lane woe in Eastridge finally close to closing
Deputy Mayor Eddie Andrews told the newspaper: “Lanes and passageways are City-owned property. Residents cannot make use of City-owned land free of charge, and therefore a lease application has to be done at a minimal cost.
“Many lanes have underground infrastructure within the area where they are located, and the area also needs to be accessible for service repairs and upgrades. Lanes cannot be closed without consent. Lease agreements clearly stipulate the guidelines for the closure and what can be done with a City-owned asset.”
Additional points of note on lane closures from the subcouncil meeting:
The council took steps in January 2024 to remove one barrier by waiving lease-application fees, encouraging more residents and neighbourhood watch groups to submit applications.
Property Management must still conduct thorough checks, including reviewing residents’ debt and rates status, before approving any lease applications.
Residents have the option to close lanes themselves, provided they follow council specifications for gates and barriers using standards from the municipality’s fencing tender. However, strict conditions apply: leased areas must be returned to their original state if leases are not renewed, including removal of gates, walls and any plantings installed during the lease period.
