The Soutpansberg Ratepayers Association (SRPA) has lodged an appeal against the decision that the Green Belt area north of Stubbs Street in Makhado (Louis Trichardt) be developed into a large business centre and a hotel.

The green light for the development of Extension 9 (forming part of the town’s Green Belt area) was given by the Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism  (LEDET)  in December last year. The development includes the construction of a 35 000m2 retail centre, a 10 000m2 office complex and a 150-bed hotel.

The Soutpansberg Ratepayers Association raised its concerns with regard to the higher impact and demand on sewerage, water and electricity, especially in light of the fact that Makhado (Louis Trichardt) does not have a consistent supply of water. The SRPA says that the proposed development is not sustainable.  

According to the SRPA, a thorough investigation regarding pollution of underground water had not been done by the environmental authorities and the Department of Water Affairs. It is a mountain catchment area that should be conserved and natural vegetation is preserved, says the SRPA, referring to the Mountain Catchment Areas Act 63 of 1970 and the Protected areas Act (amended) Act 31 of 2004.

“Since the zoning and rezoning application, significant changes have taken place in the environment, including the erection of Makhado Crossing shopping complex, which is to date not fully let,” states the SRPA.

The basis of the appeal is that the need, desirability and sustainability of the proposed development had not been considered. “The environmental authorities did not themselves consider need and desirability, nor did they check to consider whether it was in fact addressed by the local authority,” states the SRPA. They also refer to the absence of a social impact study and a traffic impact study.  

The lack of proper social consultation and transparent information was mentioned, while the focus was on the needs of the developer. “The needs of society were neglected.  One of the purposes of public participation is to afford people the opportunity to express their views on the desirability of a development that will be affecting them. There was not one public consultation or hearing,” says the SRPA Chairperson, Ms Inga Gilfillan. 

The SRPA further contends that the decision to undertake the development is unconstitutional. NEMA, which was enacted to give effect to section 24 of the Constitution, embraces the concept of sustainable development.  Section 24 (7) requires that any investigation must, as a minimum, investigate the cumulative impact of the proposed development on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage. “They failed to apply their minds to the socio-economic impact of the proposed development,” says Gilfillan. 

The SRPA lodged their appeal within the prescribed period but had not received any response to date.

LEDET was convinced that “any potentially detrimental environmental impacts resulting from the proposed development can be mitigated to acceptable levels,” according to the final Basic Assessment Report (BAR) that was received in June last year. The proposed development will not significantly “alter the sense of place of the surrounding area.” According to the department, the proposed development will have a positive impact on the local economy, crime will be less and contributions to be paid to the municipality will eventually result in better service delivery. 

In the meantime, Makhado Municipality spokesperson Louis Bobodi said on 18 March that the municipality “is working around the clock for the provision of bulk services” for the proposed development.