1. PARLIAMENTARY HEARINGS ON SPLUMB eTHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS 22 AUG 2012

2. BACKGROUND Formal comments submitted on both the Feb & April B-14 versions of SPLUMB – SALGA process – Cities Network process – KZN COGTA process – Direct engagements with DRDLR Today’s input will focus on the latest (B-14) version as most of the comments raised in previous versions have now been addressed to an extent

3. PRIMARY CONCERNS/COMMENTS CHAPTERISSUECOMMENT 3 Capacitating ProcessWhile s9 and s10 provide for National & Provincial support respectively, the necessary support and capacity needs to be put in place prior to implementation of the ACT (SPLUMB) 5 Alignment of Authorisations a)Potential conflict in legislation (NEMA 107 of 1998, et al) : which legislation takes precedence in the event of a conflict ? In the event of an appeal in a joint decision, who is responsible for hearing the appeal – the Minister/MEC responsible for environmental matters or other ? b)Potential conflict in legislation (NBR, et al) : : which legislation takes precedence in the event of possible conflict ? In the event of an appeal, who is responsible for hearing the review – the SABS review board or other ?

4. PRIMARY CONCERNS/COMMENTS CHAPTERISSUECOMMENT 6 PART C Development Charges While the extension of the possibility of raising development charges in respect of open space is welcomed, it is suggested that this should be extended to passive open space providing ecosystem goods and services, without which the municipality would have to make major investments replace, if even possible. 6 PART D Appeal Processa)s51 (Internal Appeals) provides for an appeal notwithstanding s62 of the MSA. It does not appear to exclude s62 appeals although this is the stated intention as per discussions held with DRDLR – no external or additional appeal to an independent body is provided for. b)It is desirable that there be only one appeal opportunity available to both applicants and objectors in respect of Planning matters – preferably externally.

5. PRIMARY CONCERNS/COMMENTS CHAPTERISSUECOMMENT 7 Transitional Provisions Whilst s60 attempts to address this to an extent, more is required i.e it is inevitable that certain applications will be caught between the current and the future planning legislation scenarios which may include high court review processes. An adequate transitional period (min 2 years) is required to ensure that time and effort expended on these processes is not wasted. GENERAL Alignment with Municipal Systems Act Close alignment between chapter 4 of the MSA (dealing with IDPs & SDFs) and SPLUMB is required. Ideally, all such requirements should reside in one place Amendment of the Fiscal Powers and Functions Act (No 12 of 2007) While SPLUMB cannot be a monetary bill it is necessary that FP&F Act be amended to directly provide for the collection of development charges, without which this provision is likely to lead to court cases contesting its application by municipalities

6. PRIMARY CONCERNS/COMMENTS CHAPTERISSUECOMMENT GENERAL cntd Acknowledgement of intermediate plans There is a need for SPLUMB to formally acknowledge all dowstream plans sitting below the SDF but before the detailed land use management plans or Schemes (i.e Spatial Development Plans, Local Area Plans, Precinct Plans, etc). These are policy plans which form closer interpretations of the SDF while still not assigning specific development rights. RegulationsThe lack of accompanying regulations is a short coming which needs to be addressed before the Bill is enacted