Key Takeaways
- Umhlanga residents are taking the eThekwini municipality to court to resolve traffic congestion caused by the lack of a public transport facility.
- The Oceans Umhlanga complex was built without a new public transport facility, despite initial town planning approvals requiring one to be built at the owner’s cost.
- A temporary public transport facility was established near Beacon Rock, but it has become "permanent" and was never formally approved by the city.
- The situation has become intolerable, with taxi operators, commuters, and members of the public using a facility without valid or lawful approval.
- The city is opposing the application, citing that there is no public space available to relocate the facility and that the municipality has already explored all available sites.
Introduction to the Problem
The residents of Umhlanga are taking the eThekwini municipality to court to force it to resolve the traffic congestion caused by the lack of a public transport facility. This issue arose after the development of the Oceans Umhlanga complex, which was built partly on a historic bus and taxi rank in the center of what was once a small seaside village. The initial town planning approvals given to Oceans were dependent on a new facility being built at the owner’s cost within its own precinct. However, this has not happened, and the situation has become a major problem for the residents and commuters.
The History of the Issue
In September 2023, frustrated taxi drivers blockaded the entrance and exit to the village in protest against the lack of facilities for them and their passengers. This incident highlights the seriousness of the issue and the need for a permanent solution. The body corporate of Beacon Rock, which has 113 upmarket resident units, 16 retail units, and 16 commercial units, is asking for an order directing the municipality to relocate the temporary public transport facility from its current location on Ridge Road to a permanent location within three months of the granting of the order. The chairperson of the Beacon Rock body corporate, Dhesigan Mari, stated that the construction of the retail portion of the development has long since been completed, but the public transport facility was never built.
The Current Situation
The current situation is untenable, with taxi operators, commuters, and members of the public using a temporary transport facility for which there is no valid or lawful approval. The facility is not big enough, and taxi operators are making use of neighboring areas to pick up and drop off passengers. The city has conceded that a new Spluma application would have to be made, but this could only be done once a suitable alternative public transport facility, with broad support from relevant stakeholders, had been established. The owners in Beacon Rock are suffering, with some unable to sell their units because of the taxi rank "on the doorstep". A tenant, SMG, had moved to another building, citing the same reason. A property expert confirmed that the value of Beacon Rock has diminished because of the congestion.
The City’s Response
The city is opposing the application, with senior legal adviser Mzwandile Khahula stating that the facility caters for thousands of commuters every day and that there is presently no public space available within the node or the immediate facility to relocate it. Khahula also stated that the municipality has already explored all available sites but has been unable to obtain stakeholder agreement as to any suitable site. The city is arguing that the relief sought by the applicants would be incompetent, as it would require the demolition of a retaining wall on the Oceans property and the construction of a below-grade facility. The city is also arguing that Oceans, and not the city, has the obligation to provide the permanent facility.
The Applicants’ Response
In reply, Mari stated that the city is attempting to trivialize the application when the far greater issue is its "unacceptable and unlawful conduct to enforce compliance conditions it imposed upon the developer". Mari argued that the municipality had agreed to fund 70% of the underground facility, which means that the municipality imposed strict conditions upon the developer and thereafter agreed to fund more than two-thirds of the costs of complying with such conditions. The developer should not have been permitted to continue with the multi-stage development if it did not have the requisite funding to comply with the conditions imposed on it. The applicants are arguing that the city has a responsibility to enforce the compliance conditions and to ensure that the developer fulfills its obligations.
Conclusion
The case highlights the need for a permanent solution to the traffic congestion caused by the lack of a public transport facility in Umhlanga. The residents and commuters are suffering, and the situation has become intolerable. The city and the developer must work together to find a suitable solution, and the court must ensure that the compliance conditions are enforced. The outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the residents and commuters, and it is essential that the court makes a decision that prioritizes their needs and ensures that the developer fulfills its obligations.