The Municipality seldom listen to the community and public participation meetings are often scheduled at the most inconvenient of times for the majority of our community, as most of them are at work. Schedule a meeting at 11h00 or at 16h00 and very few people can attend, but at least the municipality can then say that there was a meeting held, just too bad only 5 people attended.

Sometime ago the then Ward Committee, Ratepayers Association and Conservation Trust, as well as a couple of other associations and individuals, lodged objections against a proposal that was advertised. The Ward Councillor submitted a Memorandum of Opposition on behalf of the Ward Committee yet the Municipality blatantly ignored this and all other objections and proceeded with their decision.

Leave to appeal Municipal decisions do exist, as long as you do it within 21 days of the (actual) decision, in this case by the Mayoral Committee. The advert mentioned that “Beswaarmakers sal wel ‘n geleentheid vir appel ontvang”. (Objectors will have the leave to appeal.)
What to do then when, the decision is taken on the 31 March, your registered mail notification, as objector, is dated 29 April, post marked 3rd May at Stanford post office and you receive it only on the 4th May? Conveniently later than the allowed 21 days. Your letter also only mentions that you need to be informed. Nothing is said of your right to appeal the decision.

When the municipality was questioned about this obvious ommission, various answers came back from various departments, all different from the previous one. When challenged about the discrepancies, it was suggested that I read the Municipal Systems Act and a recently released judgement regarding appeal processes, or obtain legal advise on the relevance of the judgement in my case?? Great public relations and service.
In the end, after a year of numerous correspondence backwards and forwards, reading and re-reading of the Municipal Systems Act and said judgement , leave to appeal was finally granted, as proof existed that the Municipality did not follow due process. You still need to pay R1 650 for the “privilege” to appeal their decision. If your appeal is not successful – you forfeit the “deposit”. Needless to say – the Chairman saw it fit to refund my “deposit”. Nothing can be done after the fact about processes not followed. The only option you have is to take it to High Court to reverse a flawed decision.

During the whole process (2009 – 2011) it became quite clear that the Municipality does not follow its own rules and regulations, yet expect the community to abide the Municipal policies and by-laws to the letter. The run-a-round I experienced was nothing but a joke with transparency sorely lacking.

So not only is the parking an issue, or the ovelay zone, or the lack of active marketing, or the transfer centre or the market square or the clearing of plots or “greening initiatives or business opportunities or.community hall or …..there are just too many to mention in one comment.

Hear hear, say I. One of the things a friend recently commented on after a visit to Stanford, was, its just AMAZING how many of you are actively involved in projects etc. She thought it laudable that so many Stanfordians are willing to participate in projects of their choice, in order to make a positive difference.

But do we get met halfway by the authorities? Sadly, not always.

Two years ago I decided to prove that individuals can make a difference, and started a tree planting initiative. I found private sponsors, met with our municipal manager and after discussing locations, we planted over 40 trees. The municipality provided me with a water point, and later helped by lending myself and other volunteers the water trailer, in order to take care of the saplings.

But this summer, a new sewerage line was installed on the riverbank where 10 of those trees were now nicely established. Without contacting anyone involved, 6 of those trees were brutally ripped out the ground by municipal employees, then dumped into a wheelie bin with water, and shoved into the stoor.

Only 3 of the trees stand a chance of survival – I brought them home and only time will tell.

I find this quite unacceptable and totally unnecessary, and I feel that both the trees and the many individuals involved in this project were treated with total disrespect.

So, who is going to replace those trees? That’s six 2.5 m Celtis africana.

The Stanford Heritage Committee, through the Stanford Conservation Trust, has rewritten and rewritten extensive parts of the existing Stanford Zoning Scheme relating to the Core Conservation Area. These suggestions have been given to Riaan Kuchar and the Overstrand Municipality but when the latest Growth Management Plan was started, Stanford was not even asked for their input!

Their main concerns were that the traditional street-capes be encouraged, the roof line height to tie in with the surrounding historical buildings and the 100% coverage of commercial sites in the Core Conservation Area to be reduced.

And of course, “parking”……. Maybe its just as well we have had this “parking” rule otherwise, as the regulations stand, nothing can stop a three-storey, flat roofed Pep Stores going up with 100% coverage right on Queen Victoria Street.

Talking about parking, .. my business complex is on the outskirts of Stanford opposite a little graveyard, but I was stopped trading until I had sufficient demarcated parking bays. ( and a handicapped toilet ) The size of the business was governed by the amount of parking bays we could fit in, Isn’t this the wrong way round?

The municipal “parking” on the street is a disaster and their street-works have made mud of all my grass verges.
They have no demarcated parking and no pavement so why should I have had to?

But, Stanford is still the “Best Village”, and despite all the moans, we are very lucky to have some really great people in our Stanford Building Services Department. Their hands are tied as far as the regulations are concerned, but I really take my hat off to them and their patience.

Where would you find a building inspector personally coming to your office with plans for alterations? STANFORD, of course!

It would be refreshing to hear “wow, I believe there is a new restaurant, shop, guest house, gift shop opening”. Instead of “its never going to work”

“How would your life be different if…You walked away from gossip and verbal defamation? Let today be the day…You speak only the good you know of other people and encourage others to do the same.” Steve Maraboli

The facts in chronological order are as follows :

1. The Stanford Community had registered their concern about the Municipality insisting on imposing “city” parking requirements on Stanford “village” resulting in a number of appropriate developments in Queen Victoria Street being abandoned by the developers.

2. Consultants were appointed by the Municipality to prepare proposals for comment by the community. The proposal indicated paved parking on - yes – on the Market Square. When the Consultant responsible for the proposal was questioned he advised that his brief was to prepare proposals for parking “on the Market Square”

3. This resulted in a counter proposal prepared for consideration by the Stanford community which indicated one way traffic in a counter clockwise direction in both Longmarket and Shortmarket Streets with diagonal parking facing the Market Square.
This was rejected by owners of properties on both Longmarket and Shortmarket streets when presented at an informal meeting in Stanford.

4. Subsequent to this a further proposal was prepared omitting the one-way traffic flow, and replacing the diagonal parking with parallel parking adjoining the Market Square.

This appeared to have informal support from interested and affected parties in Stanford.

6. These proposals were tabled at a meeting with Riaan Kuchar who supported the initiative, but advised that no funding was available for planning, let alone implementation.