I would like to address the issue of Liquor Outlets in general but specifically those along Louis Botha Ave from Orange Grove to Highlands North. The battle we are waging is long term and is composed of many factors where the processes involved are complex and where simple statements by the uninformed are irrelevant. The monthly meetings organized by Earl Stoles of the Jhb City Safety Strategy Programme is probably the most valuable and important meeting for our sector and for Norwood. We have participated in this programme since its inception and interface with the Programme Manager, Nazira Cachalia consistently. The bottom line is that without the Jhb City Safety Strategy Programme and the GFA in Orange Grove> now extended to the whole Norwood SAPS Precinct, our suburb/ our Sectors 2 & 4 would be unmanageable. The Issue Log and related templates that have been created by Earl Stoles are important database documents but they need constant updating through our active cooperation. The GFA (Geographical Focus Area) that concerns us is bordered by our Sectors 2 & 4. Effectively this is Louis Botha Ave from Orange Grove to Highlands North. I have reviewed the document called “New Reporting Policy for Sector Policing” and it does not cover any new territory to similar directives that have come down from Provincial SAP structures since I was part of a previous effective NCPF. I firmly believe that SAPS views the Community Policing concept as a thorn in their side but since it is a National Policy SAPS has to abide by the policy. I am convinced that Station Management would be happy to see the backend of us. They are stuck with us and us with them. We have the option of resigning and that would make them happy. However the dictatorial attitude evinced by the recent document is calculated to control voluntary public participants, as are we, into a tight mould where they can tighten the screws of our involvement so that we are ineffective. I hope that scenario will not happen with this committee and while we should be prepared to cooperate with any reasonable request this cannot be at the expense of our commitment to the community. The following extract is illustrative: It comes from a more exhaustive document published by the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria entitled “Sector Policing on the West Rand” 2004. Re-reading that document made me realize that nothing has changed in 6 years except the corruption and the sloth that are propagated in bad management practices throughout the spectrum of our National, Provincial and local civil and public servants. Urban Management is a glaring example of this; 99% of our problems come back to Land Use issues and lack of ‘enforcement’.
The pains of community involvement
In a famous article titled “The Asshole”, John Van Maanen described police culture by way of officers’ view of the public. He argued that police divided people into three categories: suspicious persons (believed to have committed crimes), assholes (people who incessantly challenge police legitimacy), and know-nothings (ordinary citizens).23 Following this bleak and jaundiced typology, sector forums are attended primarily by assholes, partly by know-nothings, and sometimes even by suspicious persons.
Beneath the frivolity of these terms lie some serious problems community involvement has encountered. Dozens of studies from around the globe have come across similar community forum failures and limitations, such as 1) ethnically diverse neighbourhoods are seldom evenly represented in community crime forums: the elderly, the white and the middle class predominate, 2) residents tend to bring quality of life matters rather than crime matters to forums, matters police officers believe are either beyond their jurisdiction or demeaning, 3) in diverse and socially divided jurisdictions, police are at times in danger of being co-opted by one social faction in its internecine conflicts against another. In this context, community involvement can do great damage to police legitimacy.
All of the following examples are documented in our database and 100% of this has been made available to responsible entities. The list is by no means exhaustive<I have mentioned Club 88 and Taiyo ( both closed through various methods and partly with our intervention )nor the other outlets that flourish on Grant Ave nor our helping the newly formed Wm Rd Initiative with the City Safety Programme despite total lack of support from SAPS or the NCPF. The abortive PSIRA registration campaign of ‘security guards’ mooted by the NCPF was hijacked by the illegal car guards in Wm Rd. I advised the Station Cmmdr and Nick Barklem of the NCPF that the campaign was ill advised as PSIRA registration for Grade E is a week long course under SASSETA (A SETA) not a one day affair. The outcome of this is that the information I provided was proved correct. The trainer Mr. Frik Snymann of Nu-Law Academy allegedly admitted that they were in a ‘grey area’ and should not have offered the training. A simple web search on PSIRA was all that was needed, why was this not done. Because they relied on the credentials of Nu-Law Academy and ignored advice.
The debacle that has been perpetrated in Wm Rd is a blot on JMPD and SAPS as well as the NCPF. The illegal “car guards” were supplied with misinformation regarding PSIRA registration and this escalated into a farce. Registered Security Guards CANNOT operate independently they must be attached to a recognised company. Road By-laws are specific about a ‘public’ place like the Wm Rd parking lot<NO BEGGING, NO WASHING OF CARS, NO LOITERING>
We do not look at boundaries but we look to issues that affect the residents and businesses in all areas that merge with our sectors. There cannot be “territory” when all of us are affected by crime. The NCPF who organized the PSIRA event should have had a representative onsite at the outset as they are the ones who advised the ‘car guards’ to register. There were several distasteful incidents involving ill-informed members of the public including Wendy Rubenstein from the NCPF. I have sent a letter of complaint to the NCPF regarding this persons actions but have not received a reply to date.
THE OUTLETS; Past, Present & Future
1. Woza (CLOSED)
a. Several objections (we won the “Place of Amusement” application) and sustained police action but the crunch was when Hospice purchased the property and gave Woza notice. I requested Hospice, before the auction that if they acquired the property residents would like WOZA out. Hospice kept their promise now we hope Booze Boys is going the same way.
2. *Princess Bar
a. Our win with Groove Comfort has set a precedent regarding the title deeds as primary contract and supersedes the granting of a Liquor License
3. *Club 208 (CLOSED ) several years ago but DIVAS has replaced them
4. TAIYAO , Grant Ave, Norwood (CLOSED) no legal license
5. *Club 88,Wm Rd ,Norwood (CLOSED)
6. Mo’s, Grant Ave, Norwood (CLOSED)
7. *Ngubane Tavern
a. Our win with Groove Comfort has set a precedent regarding the title
deeds as primary contract and supersedes the granting of a Liquor License
b. This is a tangled web that involves the owner of Lords & Ladies.
Protracted legal action from Moodie & Robertson, years of illegal
power connections and 100rds of visits from all departments<<This
is the place that has been our focus for 15 years. My file on this is
the thickest and most contentious.
8. *Bramax
a. Our win with Groove Comfort has set a precedent regarding the title
deeds as primary contract and supersedes the granting of a Liquor License
9. *Booze Boys, Hospice Corner
a. Our win with Groove Comfort has set a precedent regarding the title
deeds as primary contract and supersedes the granting of a Liquor License
b. Hospice have given notice to the proprietor as of May 31,2010
c. An application for premises next to HI Q was in the May Prov Gazette
i. I visited the proposed premises and advised the present owner that
there will be many objections to the application and that in terms of
the title deeds Booze Boys will not be able to operate.
ii. Over 20 objections were lodged with the Local Committee
10. *Liquor & Ice
a. Applied for the Removal of Restrictions (ROR) in their title deeds.
b. Over 30 objections >will go to Planning hearing and we are the principle
objector
c. Our win with Groove Comfort has set a precedent regarding the title
deeds as primary contract and supersedes the granting of a Liquor License
11. *Blue Naartjie
a. Applied for the Removal of Restrictions (ROR) in their title deeds.
b. Over 30 objections >will go to Planning hearing and we are the principle
objector
c. Our win with Groove Comfort has set a precedent regarding the title
deeds as primary contract and supersedes the granting of a Liquor License
12. Radium Beerhall( LEGAL)
13. *Divas
a. Our win with Groove Comfort has set a precedent regarding the title
deeds as primary contract and supersedes the granting of a Liquor License
14. *Congo Bar (Apparently ceased illegal operations) but on our watch
list
15. Super Sconto Ital Liquors (LEGAL)
16. *Groove Comfort (CLOSED)
a. Applied for the Removal of Restrictions (ROR) in their title deeds.
There were over 60 objections lodged with Development Planning
b. It took 2 hearings and R5000.00 for a Town Planner to win this>
we won on the clause contained in the title deeds restricting sale of
alcoholic beverages.
17. Strikers , Highlands North
a. We won against the CoJ, Town Planning, granting them“Place of
Amusement” consent. This went to the Gauteng Townships Board and
Cllr Cirota represented us ‘pro bono’. We won hands down>>
b. The whole Highlands North Centre is a ‘hot spot’ and we
have been dealing with this for many years and I think that, finally,
we are getting through to the right people. The issue is not simply Strikers
but all the illegal building issues around it, all of which we have documented.
A single entrance/exit, wait for an emergency. Then there is the illegal
taxi rank, the drug dealing centered on the school children that gather
in the environs. The Western Slip Rd that is being taken over by blatant
illegal land use and suspicious criminal activity.
18. *Tusong Place( Luckies) in both locations (Orangia Court )<and
their present locale in an illegally converted furniture retail store
owned by Lisa Enterprises who has refused to apply for the ROR) so no
liquor license can be issued
19. KYA Bar & Grill, 599 Louis Botha Ave, Bramley, I forwarded a request
from the RA and Cllr Wolder to help and this place was closed down within
days by Johan de Bruyn.
ALL THE ABOVE WITH * are trading in contravention of their Title Deeds.
• We are working closely with the Deputy Director of Prosecutions,
Dept of Economic Development and the Joburg City Safety Programme to have
new legislation tabled that requires every applicant for a liquor license
to produce a certified copy of the Title Deeds with their proof of a lease
on the premises referred to in the application.
• The active participation from the Dept of Development Planning
is being addressed by the JCSS, but we do not expect tangible results
in the short term.
To do dossiers on each of these outlets plus all the emails and phone
calls requires an immense amount of time. We are subscribers to WINDEED
and the IMS/GIS to enable us to gather information in the shortest timeframe.
Granted we use these services to gather information on illegal land use
issues ( overcrowding ,illegal dumping ,illegal building etc,) other than
liquor outlets and these other searches are the most time consuming. We
updated the Region E database on Louis Botha Ave for their Urban Management
Dept.
Regarding the Liquor Objection process<<
1. The Liquor Objection process and the correct form for objections
Below is a short guide on how to lodge an objection to a new license application.
This procedure is provided for in the Gauteng Liquor Act 2 of 2003.
HOW TO LODGE AN OBJECTION :
It is very important to take note that applications for new licenses can
only be lodged on the first Friday of the month and on no other days.
The 21 days to object is counted from the first day of lodgement. It is
important to also note that any person may lodge an objection.
Objections must be submitted at the Regional Office where the application
was lodged.
An application for a licence as contemplated in section 23 of the Act
shall be-
(a) lodged in duplicate;
(b) in accordance with Form 1 in Schedule 2;
(c) lodged on the first Friday of any month or if such day is a public
holiday, on the second Friday thereafter that is not a public holiday;
and
19 Establishment of local committees of the Board
There are hereby established local committees of the Board in each of
the areas of the municipalities in the Province, known as Metropolitan
Councils and District Councils.
GAUTENG REGIONAL LIQUOR LICENSING OFFICES ( Established in terms of the
Gauteng Liquor Act (Act No. 2 of 2003) .
JOHANNESBURG
Nedbank Building, 85 Main Street, 3rd t Floor, Marshalltown, Johannesburg.
Tel: 0823791925
Palesa Makhabane
23 Applications
(1) Every application for a new licence shall be made to the relevant
local committee of the district or metropolitan area in which the licence
is sought.
24 Notice of application
(1) Every applicant shall give notice of an application by publication
in no less than two newspapers circulating in the area in which the premises
are situated, in the
prescribed manner, and in the Provincial Gazette as well as causing the
notice to be affixed at the premises.
(2) The notice of application shall be made within seven (7) days prior
to lodgement of the application.
(3) Notice of the application shall include the full names of the applicant,
intended trading name, identity number or registration number of the applicant,
full address and location of the premises, the type of licence applied
for, names and nature of educational institutions, names of and distances
to similar licensed premises and places of worship within a radius of
one (1) kilometre from the premises.
(4) The notice contemplated in subsection (1) shall invite interested
persons to lodge any objections in terms of section 25.
25 Objections
(1) Any person may lodge an objection to the granting of a licence in
terms of this Act, in the prescribed manner, with the local committee
and the applicant within twenty-one (21) days from date of lodgement of
the application with the secretary of the local committee referred to
in section 23.
(2) The objection shall fully state the reasons thereof and contain the
full names of the person or institution objecting, together with the full
address and contact details and be accompanied by any supporting documentation.
26 Response by the applicant to objections
The applicant shall, within a period of seven (7) days of receipt of the
objection, lodge his or her written response, if any, to the objections
lodged in terms of section 25
by submitting a copy thereof to both the local committee and the persons
who lodged the objections.
27 Hearing of applications
(1) The local committee or the Board may convene a hearing to consider
any application and objections to the application in question, on such
date, time and place as
shall be determined by it.
(2) All interested persons, including the applicant and any person who
has lodged an objection to an application, shall be afforded an opportunity
to be heard and may be represented by a person of their choice.
(3) A hearing may be adjourned and resumed on such date and at such time
and place as the local committee or the Board may determine
Johan De Bruyn
Deputy Director: Prosecutions
94 Main Street, Marshalltown, Johannesburg, 2107
ILLEGAL LAND USE PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING ARE DIRECTLY FROM WWW.JOBURG.ORG.ZA
2. What is Land Use Management?
Land Use Management is the system of legal requirements and regulations
that apply to land in order to achieve desirable and harmonious development
of the built environment.
Every property in the city has a set of regulations to control development.
These regulations are determined by the zoning of the property. Property
zoning is set out in the applicable Town Planning Scheme, which determines
such aspects as possible land use, floor area, coverage, building lines,
parking provisions etc.
There are presently different Town Planning Schemes for different areas
of the city. It is important to establish which scheme applies to which
area, as the specific requirements of the schemes differ.
In addition to the zoning regulations, development is also controlled
by conditions of title. These conditions are set out in the Title Deed
of each property, and can restrict the way in which a property may be
developed.
Other pieces of legislation that regulate development include the National
Building Regulations and Building Standards Act (Act 103 of 1977), the
Public Health Bylaws and various other Municipal Bylaws.
Any development of land that does not abide by this legislation and its
various sets of regulations can result in prosecution in terms of the
applicable legislation (refer to Planning Control and Enforcement).
3. The (Mythological) my designation Planning Control & Enforcement
Unit
THE planning control unit, which falls under the development management
directorate, in the development planning, transportation and environment
department, investigates contraventions of the town planning by-laws and
takes the necessary civil or criminal steps against offenders to ensure
compliance with the by-laws. If, as a member of the public, you are aware
of a contravention of these by-laws - for example, the house over the
road from you has begun to operate a full-time panel-beating business
in an entirely residential suburb, you may lodge a complaint with the
unit.
1. How do I lodge a complaint?
You may lodge a complaint anonymously by contacting the number listed
below, or completing the complaint form (attached) and sending it by fax
or post, or by sending an e-mail to the address below. You may lodge a
complaint in person, either by phoning, sending a fax, sending an e-mail,
or posting a letter. The contact details of the unit are as follows:
Telephone Nontsasa Myeki on 011 407 6040; or fax our offices on 011 339
2211; or e-mail
nontsasam@joburg.org.za
; or post a letter to P O Box 30733, Braamfontein 2017.
For your convenience, we have compiled a complaint form (Attached), which
you can download, fill in and return to us.
2. Investigation of a complaint
When the planning control unit receives a complaint, the procedure set
out below is followed:
a) Preliminary investigation
The unit will identify the correct erf (ie stand) number and obtain the
zoning rights of the property.
b) Site inspection
A planning control law enforcement officer will conduct a site inspection
to establish whether the unauthorised use exists. He will complete an
inspection report detailing his observations, take photographs and gather
any other evidence that supports the unauthorised use. If there is someone
at the premises, he may serve a notice immediately on them. Otherwise
a notice is posted to the offender.
c) Notice
The notice is an official warning, calling upon the offender to stop the
unauthorised use. The usual time period given for compliance is 30 days.
The law enforcement officer will then acknowledge receipt of the complaint
and advise the complainant of the action taken.
d) Re-inspection
After the notice period expires, the law enforcement officer will revisit
the site. If the unauthorised use has been terminated, the file will be
closed. If the use continues, an assessment will be undertaken to determine
whether there is a prima facie case and, if so, the matter will be referred
to the council's attorneys for further action.
e) Legal action
The council's attorneys will launch civil proceedings against the offender
to interdict him from continuing with the unauthorised use. If this action
is successful in court, the attorneys will obtain a court order. The sheriff
of the court is usually authorised by the courts to execute the court
order if the respondent does not comply with it.
An opposed legal action can take a long time to conclude.
f) Municipal courts
Once the municipal courts are operational (during the course of 2004),
the unit will prosecute certain offenders criminally for non-compliance.
So there it is in a nutshell UP to point, (e) above <<THAT IS THE
BRICK WALL and with no finance to institute legal action it is a mockery
of our civil and constitutional rights. So why do we go through all the
processes and then it is dropped in the DevPlan X file?
I can’t give a short answer but maybe it is a belief that we can
break down the brick wall if we bash it enough>
